9 Sept 2021, 15:53 by geo...@nsup.org: > Lynne (12021-09-09): > >> Because all of our codecs pass their frames through a wrapper function before >> they get to the user. So, we just set the field there, add a FATE test, and >> now >> they're guaranteed to be correctly kept updated. >> > > This is wrong and not enough. Codecs are not the only origin for frames. > To ensure this field is always up-to-date, you need to find all the > places where it can go out-of-sync, and make sure there is some kind of > wrapper. >
No, you don't, there's nothing special about this! >> So why are timestamps part of frames at all then? >> > > Seriously? Because the timestamps, unlike the time base, change from > frame to frame. > For now. No reason why they can't in the future, specifically with codecs that embed timebases in their bitstream. >> They're not isolated, they're part of the frame. And to make any sense >> of them, you need a timebase. >> > > No, one frame does not need a timestamp. Timestamps become necessary > when there are several frames. > Well, no, single-frame video also exists. We already have a packet duration field, so we are able to express such! And to make sense of that field, you also need a timebase. >> It's a single optional field! The way the comment is worded now, >> we don't even have any obligation to update it. >> > > It is a single optional field, but keeping it up to date requires a lot > of code. > It's 10 lines of code. No. _______________________________________________ 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".
