On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:10:48 +
Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Here I ask for samples which show that one is better than another,
> whichever that one is.
http://samples.ffmpeg.org/V-codecs/G2M4/XmissPlan052913.wmv
ffmpeg -f asf_o -i XmissPlan052913.wmv out.avi
[asf_o @ 031c0160] Suspicious data found
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you may already know new asf demuxer hit the tree but did not
> replace the old one.
>
> Here I ask for samples which show that one is better than another,
> whichever that one is.
>
>
First file i was using to test:
./ffprobe -f a
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:10:48 +
Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Here I ask for samples which show that one is better than another,
> whichever that one is.
ffmpeg -f asf_o -i
http://samples.ffmpeg.org/A-codecs/VoxWare/vamps_sample.asf [http @
031c0a80] HTTP error 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable Las
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 01:42:00PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 28/06/15 1:21 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 04:54:02PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> >> Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> >>> From a very quick look, the new code seems most
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:51:53 +0200
wm4 wrote:
> The new demuxer was written based on the official ASF spec, and was
> tested against a number of real world samples.
>
i really dont care about the pissing contest in this thread.
if someone wants to bench-test the new demuxer, could someone ask
Hi,
On 28.06.2015 16:10, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> As you may already know new asf demuxer hit the tree but did not
> replace the old one.
>
> Here I ask for samples which show that one is better than another,
> whichever that one is.
For starters, the new asf demuxer crashes, where the old one didn
On 28/06/15 1:21 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 04:54:02PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
>>> From a very quick look, the new code seems mostly
>>> unreviewed
>>
>> What makes you say that? Where did you give
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 04:54:02PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> > From a very quick look, the new code seems mostly
> > unreviewed
>
> What makes you say that? Where did you give your "very quick look" exactly?
>
> > Do you disagr
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:02:50 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:51:53 pm wm4 wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:46:12 +0200
> >
> > Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:42:30 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> > > > Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen H
On Sunday 28 June 2015 05:14:38 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> > On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:54:02 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> > > Second, someone actually took efforts to do so, I take it as
> > > a sign that it was considered useful by som
Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> This argument surprises me (very much)!
> Over the last four years, I had a completely different
> impression.
Shall I understand that, from you point of view, code merged from the libav
side is always bad?
Regards,
--
Nicolas G
On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:54:02 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> Second, someone actually took efforts to do so, I take it as
> a sign that it was considered useful by someone knowing the
> issue better than me.
This argument surprises me (very much)!
Over the last four years, I had a completely diff
On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:51:53 pm wm4 wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:46:12 +0200
>
> Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:42:30 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> > > Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> > > > But please allow me to repeat my question: Why do
Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> From a very quick look, the new code seems mostly
> unreviewed
What makes you say that? Where did you give your "very quick look" exactly?
> Do you disagree?
I do disagree, on several counts. First, the old muxer was based on
rever
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:46:12 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:42:30 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> > Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> > > But please allow me to repeat my question: Why do
> > > think the new demuxer should be used? What sample
>
On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:42:30 pm Nicolas George wrote:
> Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> > But please allow me to repeat my question: Why do
> > think the new demuxer should be used? What sample
> > does it fix?
>
> Why do you think it should NOT be used?
The main
Le decadi 10 messidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> But please allow me to repeat my question: Why do
> think the new demuxer should be used? What sample
> does it fix?
Why do you think it should NOT be used?
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signat
On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:32:58 pm wm4 wrote:
> Surely you know, as it has been severe enough that
> you got MiNi to block the new demuxer and not only
> keep the old demuxer, but to leave it as default.
I don't understand this sentence.
(Except for the insult.)
But please allow me to repeat my
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:30:43 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:10:48 pm Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As you may already know new asf demuxer hit the tree but did not
> > replace the old one.
>
> Do you know of a sample that gets fixed by the new demuxer?
>
> I was
On Sunday 28 June 2015 04:10:48 pm Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you may already know new asf demuxer hit the tree but did not
> replace the old one.
Do you know of a sample that gets fixed by the new demuxer?
I was unable to find one;-(
> Here I ask for samples which show that one is better
20 matches
Mail list logo
