On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 05:47:52PM +0100, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > On Friday 27 March 2015 02:45:22 pm Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:07:23AM +0000, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > Michael Niedermayer <michaelni <at> gmx.at> writes: > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:21:00AM +0000, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Michael Niedermayer <michaelni <at> gmx.at> writes: > > > > > > iam not sure the default of 6 seconds is safe > > > > > > > > > > What would be a sensible default max_delay? > > > > > > > > for this file simply considering 0xFFFF as 0 would work > > > > and would so i think only replacing that would be the > > > > least change needed > > > > > > I did not find any specification that suggests to do this > > > (but many pages were 0xFFFF is explicitely mentioned as > > > allowing for maximum delay). > > > > one could add a option like max_delay which is then used in place > > of 0xFFFF, conforming to the spec if taken litterally > > I attached a new version of the patch that does not change the > current behaviour but gives users a chance to play long gifs in > real-time. > > > The only reason i can imagine a file would be using the "max delay" > > would be to wait for user input before displaying the next frame > > i thought thats not the reason for this file though but i might be > > wrong > > Imo, the main reason to use "max delay" is if the creator wants a > frame to be shown for more than ten minutes.
was this the intent of the creator of the sample file we have ? i mean that the frames display more then 10 minutes [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. -- Aristotle
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
