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

[Måns Rullgård]

Janne Grunau <janne-ffmpeg at jannau.net> writes:

> 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:

That's almost reminiscent of the Holy Hand-grenade recital from Monty
Python...

> 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.

... is 0-padded to @var{N} digits.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com