On 03-05-2019 10:01 AM, Gyan wrote:
On 03-05-2019 03:00 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:42 PM Sasi Inguva
wrote:
Looks good to me. We were already doing PTS based seeking in MOV
demuxer
(although it's not perfect).
There are several problems with the MOV approach how
On 03-05-2019 03:00 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:42 PM Sasi Inguva
wrote:
Looks good to me. We were already doing PTS based seeking in MOV demuxer
(although it's not perfect).
There are several problems with the MOV approach however. You cannot
look at AVStream->index
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:42 PM Sasi Inguva
wrote:
>
> Looks good to me. We were already doing PTS based seeking in MOV demuxer
> (although it's not perfect).
>
There are several problems with the MOV approach however. You cannot
look at AVStream->index_entries, take a timestamp of such an index,
Looks good to me. We were already doing PTS based seeking in MOV demuxer
(although it's not perfect).
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 3:23 AM Gyan wrote:
>
> FATE passes. Checked that transcoded output remains the same whereas in
> copy mode, seek to a video KF using ffmpeg cli returns the desired KF
> a
FATE passes. Checked that transcoded output remains the same whereas in
copy mode, seek to a video KF using ffmpeg cli returns the desired KF
and not the earlier KF, as happens at present.
Gyan
From 029a75fe27e576cd0d04c8bdd0707d7903250bac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gyan Doshi
Date: Thu,
