Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ffmpeg: add display_{rotation, hflip, vflip} options

From: Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann@mail.de>
To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ffmpeg: add display_{rotation, hflip, vflip} options
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 17:19:19 +0200
Message-ID: <64c6b7ce-671a-1a03-45e1-cad08a8cf04c@mail.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEu79Sb529X5X_VKC4F2z2XqxySec24CFrLkMJvCoB3sUAFwug@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Am 26.05.22 um 13:31 schrieb Jan Ekström:
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 9:27 AM Jan Ekström <jeebjp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022, 07:21 Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg@gyani.pro> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2022-05-18 11:34 pm, Jan Ekström wrote:
>>>> This enables overriding the rotation as well as horizontal/vertical
>>>> flip state of a specific video stream on either the input or output
>>>> side.
>>>
>>> Since rotation, flip and scale are stored in a single data structure,
>>> how about a single option i.e. -display "rotate=90,flip=hv,scale=2"
>>
>>
>> I did think about that, and I even implemented AVDict based options for ffmpeg.c in a branch. But then pretty much got tired of lack of AVOption automation (f.ex. for the flip flagging etc), and decided that since these are relatively basic and simple, the non-generic option for this could be just three options in the initial submission.
> 
> In the end I did implement this with a single dict-based thing in a
> branch but never got to posting it to this thread:
> https://github.com/jeeb/ffmpeg/commits/ffmpeg_c_display_matrix_with_dicts
> 
> So for the positive: Now it's all in a single option so it's clear
> that it's defining a single structure.
> And the negative: Needs a struct definition, struct, AVOption list,
> AVClass and actually if you already made a dict out of the options
> before, as the functions will free the original after usage and
> generate a new one, it destroys the life time expectations of the dict
> and thus it is just simpler to copy the dict when entering the
> function (I think there is an arguments string based API which might
> or might not actually be simpler for this case).
> 
> So yea, not sure if I prefer this version.

Ping.

Did this stall for a reason? How can we iterate on it?

-Thilo
_______________________________________________
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".