Le 13 décembre 2024 12:14:43 GMT+02:00, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> a
écrit :
>Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel (12024-12-13):
>> Then the conclusion in your example is wrong.
>
>No it is not. Either you misunderstood what I explained
Rather what you wrote ("wave") is not what you meant, presumably "PCM". As You
Know, in a multimedia technical discussion, anyone would take "wave" to refer
to the Microsoft RIFF waveform file format, not a naked wave form. Misspeaking
is not quite the same as being misunderstood.
> I am guessing you only read it superficially,
> you did not actually try to do it for
>yourself
I don't know what to make of that sentence, to be honest. Are you implying that
you deliberately used confusing ambiguous terminology? What would even be the
point of doing such a thing?!
> — or you really do not know how to use ffmpeg.
Now you're just being provocative. Would it kill you to admit that your answer
was poorly written?
Anyway, that doesn't advance the technical original controversy in this thread,
so I'll leave it at that.
_______________________________________________
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".
