On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 20:35, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 06:13:54PM +0800, Felicia Lim wrote: > > Friendly ping. Please let me know if there are any changes I should make > to > > this patch? > > will apply, seems noone else cares about it ... > > thanks > > [...] > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good. > Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart > then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > Reverted. I did describe what has to be done to properly support ambisonics as to make this patch work properly. I know it works for Google's usecase but I'm against "by-chance" ambisonics where you rely on a specific channel layout and a specific encoder encoding them with a specific setting. We still have bits leftover for channel layout and I'd agree to add an extra bit to indicate the particular layout carries ambisonics, with the number of channels indicating the order. This wouldn't need extensive channel layout API replacements and would still be sufficient to implement both encoding and decoding of such audio. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
