From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737B948844 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 17:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3470068D033; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:43:44 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 501D668CCC1 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:43:37 +0200 (EET) Authentication-Results: mail0.khirnov.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=khirnov.net header.i=@khirnov.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=ersZanmM; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075032405F2 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:43:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id kPEK5taFjqoO for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:43:36 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1705859016; bh=SvHF8xPFIq8KBQzHSPZz/uYRv7Fcb6cOJEFJGQOT4iY=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ersZanmMQo7bEsDrReTfSxnEboL5YQi5g3zrN0FhWwYxMyla/EtrNXrgssY9YAtlB fQmpzgt9aSD3FimarpMcrS/v6n4z7bdXjTJ4fXKxovvETTzcfaVb45wO+BKviE/Yus p1oVMtSdFlWT95ZzMEZ3WNQdtkwi/Kcrd7hIvo/bpAa4Prb1+2j192h+4fk+NvPer6 Uowj2z37oLA5H3i16891gTYk0ZOCTV92lpuGARh+JW00PZDhAGmnOYzcMRPyDpG9hP 5Dtz7OQ1I4OMgkoc6XG/9MYLPW4l3YE9936zhdxAdIUp+9kLF69li5nsYR9HPiHB3G RAR3U0o34S/bg== Received: from lain.khirnov.net (lain.khirnov.net [IPv6:2001:67c:1138:4306::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "lain.khirnov.net", Issuer "smtp.khirnov.net SMTP CA" (verified OK)) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 683572404E5 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:43:36 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4478E1601B9; Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:43:36 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: References: <20240105164251.28935-1-anton@khirnov.net> <20240105164251.28935-7-anton@khirnov.net> <170548215151.8914.14196080795223407302@lain.khirnov.net> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:43:36 +0100 Message-ID: <170585901625.8914.14881418663136319578@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 7/8] fftools/ffmpeg_demux: implement -bsf for input X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Quoting Stefano Sabatini (2024-01-20 12:32:42) > On date Wednesday 2024-01-17 10:02:31 +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Quoting Stefano Sabatini (2024-01-06 13:12:19) > > > > > > This looks spurious, since this suggests the example is about the > > > listing, and it's applying a weird order of example/explanation > > > (rather than the opposite). > > Use the @code{-bsfs} option to get the list of bitstream filters. E.g. > @example > ... > > The problem here is that "E.g." is placed close to a statement about > the listing, therefore it might sound like the example is about the > listing (which is not). I moved it to a new paragraph. > > I see nothing weird about this order, it's the standard way it is done > > in most literature I encounter. I find the reverse order you're > > suggesting far more weird and unnatural. > > When you present an example you usually start with an explanation > (what it does) and then present the command, not the other way around. I don't, neither does most literature I can recall. Typically you first present a thing, then explain its structure. Explaning the structure of something the reader has not seen yet is backwards, unnatural, and hard to understand. > > Also the following: > -------------------------------------- > ffmpeg -bsf:v h264_mp4toannexb -i h264.mp4 -c:v copy -an out.h264 > @end example > applies the @code{h264_mp4toannexb} bitstream filter (which converts > MP4-encapsulated H.264 stream to Annex B) to the @emph{input} video stream. > > On the other hand, > @example > ffmpeg -i file.mov -an -vn -bsf:s mov2textsub -c:s copy -f rawvideo sub.txt > @end example > applies the @code{mov2textsub} bitstream filter (which extracts text from MOV > subtitles) to the @emph{output} subtitle stream. Note, however, that since both > examples use @code{-c copy}, it matters little whether the filters are applied > on input or output - that would change if transcoding was hapenning. > --------------------------------------- > > this makes the reader need to correlate the two examples to figure > them out, that's why I reworked the presentation in my suggestion as a > more linear sequence of presentation/command/presentation/command. > > In general examples should focus on how a task can be done, not on the > explanation of the command itself. I disagree. Examples should focus on whatever can be usefully explained with an example. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".