On 17/01/2023 19:11, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 1/17/23, Jeffrey Chapuis <ashyni1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm getting there, don't give up on me. >> >> Now 'limit_upscaled' become the variable used in filter_frame() and >> 'limit' is never change, unless by user >> We only have to update 'limit_upscaled' if 'limit' really changes. > > probably ok
>- if (s->limit < 1.0) >- s->limit *= (1 << desc->comp[0].depth) - 1; >+ s->bitdepth = desc->comp[0].depth; >+ s->limit_upscaled = s->limit; >+ if (s->limit_upscaled < 1.0) >+ s->limit_upscaled *= (1 << s->bitdepth) - 1; Is it better like this? we avoid a double assignment. - if (s->limit < 1.0) - s->limit *= (1 << desc->comp[0].depth) - 1; + s->bitdepth = desc->comp[0].depth; + + if (s->limit_upscaled < 1.0) + s->limit_upscaled = s->limit * (1 << s->bitdepth) - 1; + else + s->limit_upscaled = s->limit; The full patch without this change is in the previous reply (https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2023-January/305806.html), let me know if there is other change to make with formatting/renaming. I really appreciate your patience with this patch. _______________________________________________ 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".
