Hi, On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote:
> Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > I still wonder if it was a good idea to add the > > > formats >8 and <16... > > > > I think the biggest issue with going with 16 and > > using bits_per_coded_sample, is to enforce that > > the lowest bits are actually zero. > > I think this shouldn't be enforced. > > Iirc, one issue is that libx264 expects these > pix_fmts and would have to transform the input > if FFmpeg would not support them. > From a (very) quick look, this seems to be > different with libvpx or did I misread your > patch? upper bits are zero in libvpx, so it uses formats that are analogous to our p10/p12 pixfmts. It (confusingly) calls the formats p16 in its internal API, and sets bits_per_sample, but this has the exact opposite meaning of what it means in ffmpeg... Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
