On 2020-06-19 20:41 +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am Fr., 19. Juni 2020 um 20:33 Uhr schrieb Cristian Bicheru > <c.biche...@gmail.com>: > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:53 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Am Fr., 19. Juni 2020 um 18:42 Uhr schrieb <c.biche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > From: Cristian Bicheru <c.biche...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > NV16 and NV61 are interleaved 4:2:2 8-bit formats. There was some > > > > internal > > > > NV16 support prior to this patch but the pixel format was not publicly > > > > accessible. > > > > Please explain (as thorough as possible) why the new pix_fmt is necessay. > > > > I mainly added the new format for completion > > This does not sound like a good reason to add complexity. > > If you find a camera that only supports NV61, I would say > we should reconsider.
I guess NV61 is not super important, but it's kind of an interesting case to use for reasoning about if additional pixel formats may be added to the code base or not. For example "If you find a camera that only supports NV61" seems a bit to narrow as a guideline. I think if there is equipement that supports both variants NV16 and NV61, that could be enough to support NV61 too. One could also argue adding a well defined pixel format should be fine especially if it is easy. In this case it is a simple and low complexity change, as we already support NV16 anyway. How do others think about adding support for more pixel formats? Alexander _______________________________________________ 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".
