On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:01 PM Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote:
> Quoting Derek Buitenhuis (2021-03-11 12:50:03) > > > the API user should receive valid timestamps and not need to handle > that. > > > it cannot be expected that every API user carries around workarounds > for random > > > muxer bugs. That would be really alot of duplicated code > > > > This is a HARD disagree from me. A demuxe should not be 'fixing' > timstamps. This is > > an applciation level problem. > > I entirely agree with this. Libavformat should export what is stored in > the file as accurately as possible. It does not have enough information > about the context/use case to fix timestamps, nor whether fixing is even > required. > > We can and eventually should provide optional code for timestamps > generation/manipulation, e.g. in the form of a bitstream filter which > would have access to accurate reordering information. But it should be > entirely separate from the demuxer. > There is already setts bitstream filter for this. > > -- > Anton Khirnov > _______________________________________________ > 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".
