2016-12-10 12:13 GMT+01:00 wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com>: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:51:04 +0100 > Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2016-12-09 19:45 GMT+01:00 wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com>: >> >> > But users switching from FFmpeg to other software because >> > it fails at the limit does happen. >> >> Could you elaborate? >> Was there a bug report that we ignored? > > Reporting bugs to ffmpeg is so tedious, why would anyone do that?
We have a unreasonable large amount of bug reports that are unlikely to get fixed (by purely technical reasons), I wonder why something as trivial as increasing image size for actual use cases is not reported. > I think in the specific case I had in mind, imagemagick was > used instead, but I could be wrong. The use-case was > processing high-res scans. > > Surely not really a worry for ffmpeg, since it's concerned > about video, and 16K video is still "a bit" in the future. I just tested 16k and it works for some cases, reports "codec isn't specified for 16k" for others and fails with x264. What exactly was the issue that could be fixed in FFmpeg? Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
