Hi, On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Vittorio Giovara < > vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> >> --- >> This is a little hackish, not sure how to represent the matrix otherwise. > > > Haha :) I have to admit I hadn't put much thought into YCgCo yet. It's a > little hacky but I guess it's OK... > > I think the primary reason some people - at some point in ancient history, > certainly not today - might have cared about YCgCo is because the > conversion between RGB and YCgCo is so trivial. For example, YCgCo to RGB > is two butterflies (an interleaved add/sub pair), which is incredibly > appealing from a performance point of view. But we're not using that > property here... > > I'm not saying it's bad, and it's probably totally irrelevant, especially > given how insignificant YCgCo is anyway, but it's worth noting. > Pushed. Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
