2018-05-17 12:22 GMT+02:00, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Michael Niedermayer > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:53:46AM +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> 2018-05-16 0:29 GMT+02:00, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> > It makes no real difference if its less efficient or whatever - >>> > if a codec specification asks for this behavior, then our >>> > decoders should act accordingly. >>> >>> I wonder where this suddenly comes from? >>> (I was away from my mail client when a similar argument >>> was used a few weeks ago and I forgot later.) >>> Luckily, many of our codecs do smarter things >>> than the specifications asks for... >>> >>> Do we have a specification for qtrle? >> >> Iam only aware of the one "we", that is more correctly mike >> melanson wrote: https://multimedia.cx/qtrle.txt >> >> I think this invalidates the argument, so if i hear no objections >> then ill apply this patch in a few days > > How does that invalidate the argument that you take a compressed > CRF stream and suddenly decide to make VFR out of it?
Apart from the fact that your argument was that there is a specification that we have to follow (an argument that should be used very carefully imo), the argument that we should do something less efficient instead of improving the efficiency does not seem very strong to me. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
