Hi I nned help to concat videos (join in batch mode) I nned join abou 300 videos and I do it one per one. I have 2 list of videos, one short and another long. I use this Join video1(list1) to video1(list2) to video2(list1) Join video2(list1) to video2(list2) to video3(list1) Join video3(list1) to video3(list2) to video4(list1)..... then star repeating the list one until the list 2 finish all videos
On 03/09/2015, Moritz Barsnick <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Roger, users, > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 15:49:34 -0600, Roger Pack wrote: >> On 6/11/15, Moritz Barsnick <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:31:54 -0600, Roger Pack wrote: >> > Which is something like a "5.3x" display, such as lame shows it (I >> > think). >> > >> > I think that is just as valid a request for video. I do see the fps, >> > but I need to do quick head-math and know the fps of the source. >> > >> > That said, there may be some ambiguity with regards to which base to >> > take: Input PTS, output PTS; what about jumps in PTS? Can this work >> > when copying? I'm thinking out loud too much. ;) > > I have done some thinking, and I am convinced I need this feature. > >> It would be a huge win to get an "estimated time to completion" as well >> :) > > This is too tricky in this part of the code. I think the muxers and > demuxers handle durations, and it becomes more complicated if VBR, trim > filters, enable expressions and other complicated stuff are involved. > So while an ETA (or a progress in percent) would be nice, I can't wrap > my head around it. > > That said, here's a not-so-quick shot at a speed display (attached). I > made some other approaches with some other calculations, but it never > made enough sense. > > I used "%.3g" for the printf format, as I like the number of relevant > digits this way. I haven't looked at the portability of %g across > supported compilers though. > > I haven't bothered writing any info into the "progress information" > (&buf_script) at this point. I probably should for consistency. > > Disclaimer: I don't know if we should even try to get this upstream. > I'm just playing with the possibilities. ;-) Just for you and me, > Roger. > > [That function could really really really make use of a macro for > snprintf(buf + strlen(buf), sizeof(buf) - strlen(buf), ...); > 14 occurrences! > ;-) ] > > Moritz > -- SCC _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
