On 5/15/20, lance.lmw...@gmail.com <lance.lmw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:27:35AM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> On 5/15/20, lance.lmw...@gmail.com <lance.lmw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 09:00:21PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 14 May 2020, Marton Balint wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, 14 May 2020, Nicolas George wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Marton Balint (12020-05-14): >> >> > > > I am not a huge fan of this patch, mafd refers to a score >> >> > > > between this >> >> > frame >> >> > > > and the previous frame, we cannot ensure that there were no >> >> > > > additional >> >> > frame >> >> > > > processing between scdet and this filter which may have >> >> > > > duplicated >> >> > > > or >> >> > > > removed frames. So I'd rather not add this feature. >> >> > > >> >> > > It can only happen if the user has put filters in the middle. I >> >> > > move >> >> > > we >> >> > > trust users who insert such obscure filters to do what they want >> >> > > to, >> >> > > or >> >> > > to fix their issues if they have some. >> >> > >> >> > Fine, I am not blocking this if null pointer deref issues are fixed. >> >> > >> >> > I think we can also assume that if the metadata exists, it will >> >> > contain >> >> > a valid number, so I suggest this code: >> >> > >> >> > e_mafd = av_dict_get(next->metadata, "lavfi.scd.mafd", NULL, >> >> > AV_DICT_MATCH_CASE); >> >> > if (e_mafd) { >> >> > mafd = strtod(e_mafd->value, NULL); >> >> > } else { >> >> > s->sad(crnt->data[0], crnt->linesize[0], next->data[0], >> >> > next->linesize[0], crnt->width, crnt->height, &sad); >> >> > emms_c(); >> >> > mafd = (double)sad * 100.0 / (crnt->width * crnt->height) >> >> > / >> >> > (1 << s->bitdepth); >> >> > } >> >> >> >> Why this patch was committed without a recent review??? >> > >> > Sorry, I consider it's reviewed old patchset, but it seems it's >> > incomplete. >> >> Also it uses scd for metadata filter name, which is bad. It should use >> full filter name. > > Sorry, in fact I intentionally did not use the filter name. At that time, I > considered > that there may be different filters for scene detection, but for filters > that use the metadata, > the processing method should be the same. So I didn't use the filter name.
That is really bad explanation, Different filters writting to same metadata entry is invalid. > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Marton >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> >> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email >> >> ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". >> > >> > -- >> > Thanks, >> > Limin Wang >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> > >> > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email >> > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". >> _______________________________________________ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> >> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email >> ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". > > -- > Thanks, > Limin Wang > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".