On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 06:06:37PM +0100, wm4 wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:51:11 +0100 > Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:02:11PM +0100, wm4 wrote: > > > It's not practical to keep this with the new decode API. > > > --- > > > ffmpeg.c | 7 ------- > > > ffmpeg.h | 1 - > > > 2 files changed, 8 deletions(-) > > > > its not practical in ffmpeg.c but libavcodec should be able to easily > > check that a decoder which doesnt declare AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES > > doesnt decode "subframes" > > Can you move this check into libavcodec ? > > i think otherwise nothing would be checking for missing > > AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES anymore > > > > What's the point of this check?
to keep track of / detect the cases that put multiple decodable frames in a packet. Whats the point of that? there where several IIRC one is that when too many frames are put in a packet latency increases, another is that seeking granularity is worse (if its not even one packet for the whole file ...) also when stream copying most muxers do expect 1 frame per packet so that would generate invalid files AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES kind of says, "i know it has multiple frames per packet and thats ok or its just nt practical to do anything about" [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good. Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
