On Tue, 15 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You are right. There *is* a big difference between these two...
> :-))))) Could you please fix your fix?
Only when you fix the code so it doesn't crash on my systems.
*before* yuvdeinterlace crashed.
*after* it does not crash.
Since yuvmotionfps is based on an older version of the deinterlacer
logic the problem, I think remains. IF that is incorrect I can
add yuvmotionfps to mjegtools CVS and you can "fix" it (since it
appears to be an abandoned program).
I do not fix programs which 1) are working and 2) do not crash :) So,
no - I am not going to fix yuvdeinterlace. If you need an account
on the system where it will crash with the OLD way of doing things
let me know - that can be arranged.
If yuvmotionfps works and doesn't crash then I have to say the same
thing ;)
BUT the concept of vastly overallocating buffers strikes me as nonsense.
Why can't the code properly check the boundary conditions and NOT
"overshoot" (and thus access areas outside the frame)? Is that too
hard? (a few more lines of code perhaps ;)?
'night.
Steven Schultz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
