On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:37:25 +0100 Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> 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 ...) It's true that too many frames in a packet isn't ideal, but that's not what the code checks. It checks if an audio decoder not marked with AV_CODEC_CAP_SUBFRAMES consumes partial packets. That might be useful as debug check in libavcodec or so, or by properly reviewing patches for new decoders. > 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" > > [...] _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
