On 5/9/19, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/9/19, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: >> Paul B Mahol (12019-05-09): >>> I got into possession of code that is better than atempo for very >>> small scale factors (0.5). >>> >>> So I gonna write new filter which would also be able to change both >>> tempo and pitch at same time. >> >> My requirements stay the same: >> >> If it does the same thing, then it belongs in atempo, not in a separate >> new filter. >> >> This is a generic principle: if they do the same thing, from the users' >> perspective of the result and not from the developer perspective of the >> implementation, then they should have the same interface, and the users >> should get the best choice by default as much as possible. >> >> This is not an isolated problem, and this is not a whim from me: we had >> a discussion during the last VDD about the proliferation of scaling >> filters, and there was agreement that it was not a good direction for >> users. We also have a dozen de-interlacing filters and another dozen of >> de-noising filters. We cannot go back in time to prevent that >> proliferation, but we can prevent it from spreading farther, do >> resamplers and other kind of filters. > > There can not be one ultimate denoising filter. > > Your reasoning is illogical. >
Also atempo does not do pitch adjustments. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
