[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Add documentation for the image2 muxer.

[Janne Grunau]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:48:23PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Friday 2011-01-28 18:15:30 +0100, Janne Grunau encoded:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:03:54PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > 
> From 99ebfa17eee5bb94dbab664714f4269a99a0e330 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Stefano Sabatini <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:53:00 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] Add documentation for the image2 muxer.
> 
> ---
>  doc/muxers.texi |   51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/muxers.texi b/doc/muxers.texi
> index c3dcf11..5adfaf1 100644
> --- a/doc/muxers.texi
> +++ b/doc/muxers.texi
> @@ -18,4 +18,55 @@ enabled muxers.
>  
>  A description of some of the currently available muxers follows.
>  
> + at section image2
> +
> +Image file muxer.
> +
> +This muxer writes video frames to multiple image files specified by a
> +pattern.
> +
> +The pattern may contain the string "%d" or "%0 at var{N}d", which
> +specifies the position of the characters representing a numbering in
> +the filenames. If the form "%d0 at var{N}d" is used, the string
> +representing the number in each filename is 0-padded and @var{N} is
> +the total number of 0-padded digits representing the number. The

is this even correct? probably just easy to misunderstand. following is
shorter and easier to understand:

If the form "%d0 at var{N}d" is used, the string representing the number
in each filename has @var{N} digits and is 0-padded.

Janne