On 5/31/17, Matthias Troffaes <matthias.troff...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Paul, > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This code does not belong in this filter. >> >> Make new filter instead. > > May I kindly ask why you think so? I considered this as well but then > decided against it, as this new filter would behave like framestep as > a common special case, and would also share a reasonable amount of > code with framestep. I don't feel very strongly either way though.
Framestep filter does have very little code. And should be kept as is. > > I can split this into a new filter if that's deemed better by the > majority here. How should it be called? It generalises both > tblend=average (step=2, blend=2) and framestep (any step, blend=1) - > so maybe "frameblend"? Should blend default to step (so it behaves > like tblend by default but supporting more than 2 frames), or to 1 (so > it behaves like framestep by default, as in the current patch)? fskipblend or something like that _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
