On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 08:41, Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 08:20, Devin Heitmueller < > devin.heitmuel...@ltnglobal.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:13 AM Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: >> > The (closest?) video PTS is even worse than the last PCR because the >> VBV means the closest PTS can be quite far from the interpolated PCR. >> >> It's arguments like that which prompted me to explicitly exclude such >> a patch from the series. It's a discussion to be had, but not >> relevant for this patch series (which makes no effort to change the >> logic for how the timestamp is determined). >> >> Wait until such a patch is submitted, and then we can debate at length >> the ambiguity in the specification and what the best approach is. >> > > There is zero ambiguity in the specification. >
Like any other form of SI in MPEG-TS the timestamp (although there is actually no such thing) is "now", which by definition is the interpolated PCR. Taking a video frame PTS is incorrect. What's the point of submitting patches like this exposing things in the public API that you know to be wrong? Kieran _______________________________________________ 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".
