Hi, On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 5:19 PM Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> Hi > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:48:03PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:29 AM Niklas Haas <ffm...@haasn.xyz> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 02:32:07 +0100 Michael Niedermayer < > > > mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:31:42AM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 01:48:02 +0100 Michael Niedermayer < > > > mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 02:57:53PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote: > > > > > > > From: Niklas Haas <g...@haasn.dev> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a good way of generating a PAL8 output. > > > > > > > > > > > > of course not > > > > > > > > > > > > but this breaks fate and features > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't really break a feature because we have a better > replacement > > > already > > > > > included in libavfilter, IMO. > > > > > > > > swscale could convert to pal8 before, it cant after the patch. > > > > So it lost a feature and breaks users code unless iam missing > > > > something ? > > > > > > It is worth pointing out that *libswscale* does not directly output > PAL8; > > > this rather is (and always was) handled by vf_scale. So in some sense, > this > > > functionality already depends on libavfilter. > > > > > > That said, I do agree that simply regressing existing use cases should > not > > > be done without some sort of mechanism for automatically invoking the > > > proper > > > replacement. > > > > > > I will retract this patch for now, then, and put the corresponding > issue on > > > hold. I think that a full discussion of how to handle this better will > have > > > to wait until we have a better dither handling inside swscale. > > > > > > > I would commit it, but instead of failing, emit a warning (recommending > to > > use the palettegen filter instead) and continue the old behaviour (as a > > fallback). > > A future libswscale could include palettegen. (which would fix this issue > instead of requiring users to switch to a different filter that may not > even be available in the software they are using) > To start, you agree that the current swscale hack to support some form of palette generation is inferior to palettegen, right? Assuming you agree with that - which is hard to argue with - don't you agree that for now, we should at the very least inform users that - if this is what they're doing - what they're doing is inferior (sws-palette-generation) and that there's a superior solution in-place already (palettegen). For commandline users, this will be a string change in their invocation. For API users, it's a bit more work but nothing major. I can integrate libavfilter in my application in a few minutes. I have posted sample code on stackoverflow doing that. For now, this is just an informative message (at loglevel=warning) telling our users about this superior experience. At some point in the future (this is probably 2 years from now?), the warning turns into an error. That provides a clear timeline for this hypothetical swscale feature to be implemented - or not. Both would be a great improvement for the vast majority of our users who don't read their messages from their commandline invocations until they fail. I only see positives here. And the best is: all of this already exists - right there in FFmpeg, the toolkit which we all love. We only have to inform our users about all this greatness. You must be excited about this, no? Ronald _______________________________________________ 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".
