On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:33 AM Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:12 PM Andrey Semashev <andrey.semas...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > I think there needs to be some consistency across different lavc > > decoders. If we consider that lavc should produce one decoded frame per > > one encoded one, even if the encoded one contains multiple layers, then > > that should be true for all decoders. > > > > Yes. I think one thing that would help is if we had access to more samples > with an expected behaviour. Right now we may have samples, but if all we do > is check md5 without caring what it means, then it's kind of pointless. > > > > Also, I think having decoded frames from all layers would also be > > useful, but there should be a way to know which layer they belong to. > > AFAIK, lavc currently doesn't provide that information. This mode of > > operation (producing frames for all layers) should be optional. > > > I agree. > I think this is what my second patch is doing. Set by default to false to output all the layer and add an option to select which operating point we want the decoder to output. > > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > 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". _______________________________________________ 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".
