On 8/11/2020 11:51 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 8/11/20, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: >> Paul B Mahol (12020-08-11): >>> You are only one that now know what is bug and what is not bug and >>> ignore others decisions? >> >> As I am the one who designed and wrote this part of the code, it is not >> that much of a stretch to assume that I am in the best position to say >> what is supposed to work and what will not work. >> >> And from that position, I very much affirm: timestamps are >> authoritative, while frame rate is only indicative and enforced nowhere >> in the framework. >> >> Therefore, your fix is not only wrong in theory, but does not actually >> fix anything. >> >> But in the end, xfade is your filter, and you are the one responsible >> for its bugs. If you do not want help in fixing them, it is your >> problem. > > I never trust your "reasoning" behind non-existent bugs.
This entire thread should have ended with you saying "I don't consider this a bug and will not change it, but you're welcome to send a patch", instead of again being rude at him for raising concerns and offering you help. Was that too much to ask? > >> >>> Yes, or even better they can use motion interpolators, instead of >>> always silently duplicating frames. >> >> This is true, and applies exactly the same to every single filter using >> framesync. >> >> -- >> Nicolas George >> > _______________________________________________ > 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".
