On 22/08/15 10:03 PM, Stephen Hutchinson wrote: >> I don't really think checking for 60 is enough to get working 12bit >> non-experimental encoding. 68 will probably be a safer bet. >> And regardless of which we end up checking for, this change will break >> support for libx265 1.7, which is not a good idea at the very least until >> 1.8 is released. > > To test, I checked out 1.7 from the 1.7 tag. Dropping the check in > the patch to 59 so I could use 1.7, compilation still succeeds. The > requirement for -strict experimental would be necessary to pair with the > warnings in libx265, but it doesn't appear to actually break.
Yes, i was talking about the fact the configure check would fail and not that the changes to libx265.c from this patch would break compilation with 1.7. > > Otherwise, waiting for 1.8 would be preferable since hopefully the warnings > wouldn't be necessary. As i said, if we're bumping the minimum version required then 68 is a better choice than 60. Both mean 1.8 as minimum, but only the former will guarantee that 12bit encoding is not experimental. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
