1 Dec 2021, 16:47 by an...@khirnov.net: > Quoting Lynne (2021-11-26 09:00:59) > >> 25 Nov 2021, 23:49 by c...@passwd.hu: >> >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Lynne wrote: >> > >> >> This adds a time_base field (currently unused), analogue to the >> >> AVPacket.time_base field. >> >> This allows for API clients to exchange AVFrames directly, without >> >> needing to plumb extra data from sources via side mechanisms. >> >> >> > >> > The objections raised before still stand I believe, and again, the main >> > concern is that the API user won't know when to use the packet or frame >> > timebase and when to use the frame/packet source timebase. >> > >> > You write this in the doxy: >> > >> >> Time base for the timestamps in this frame. May be 0, in which case the >> >> time_base from the frame source should be used. >> >> >> > >> > One could easily think - based on this text alone - that every user of >> > avcodec_receive_frame should check if AVFrame->time_base is 0 to calculate >> > real PTS... >> > >> > I'd be a lot more willing to accept this if you could document explicitly >> > that AVFrame->time_base (and AVPacket->time_base) is not used by the API >> > right now, and is similar to e.g. *opaque field. And later, if by using >> > some magic flag or new API or whatever it turns out to make sense to >> > actually use AVPacket/AVFrame time base, the doxy text can be extended >> > accordingly. >> > >> >> So you'd like for the field to either be fully opaque or fully working (by >> always >> having the correct time_base value)? >> That sounds fair, description changed: >> "Time base for the timestamps in this frame. Currently unused by any API, >> users can set this and use it as an opaque field. In the future, this field >> may >> be set by the API for you, but its value will always be ignored." >> > > Always is a bit too strong, presumably we do want to start using that > field eventually. > > How about something like: > In the future, this field may be set on frames output by decoders or > filters, but its value will be by default ignored on input to encoders > or filters. >
Yes, that's much better and allows us to extend it like avpacket's field. I've changed it locally. I think this has been on the ML long enough, so I'll push it in 2 days with the amended description so it makes it in 5.0. I'll also send a patch to change the description to the AVPacket's field to this soon. _______________________________________________ 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".
