On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:34:12 +0200 Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/26/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2018-04-26 13:17 GMT+02:00, Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li>: > >> On 2017/06/26 15:09, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >>> Rationale: > >>> - Slower then other encoder > >>> - Less configurable > >>> - Does not support alpha profile > >>> - Does not set interlaced flag > >>> - Worse output quality > >>> - No need for 2 encoders > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> > >>> > >> Is there any reason this was not pushed? > >> I can't seem to see any argument against it. > > > > It was shown in the past that this encoder is faster, > > more efficient and produces better quality. > > Why are you not telling real truth? > > None of your claims are really true. > > I wonder why. Can any of you post numbers? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
