[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavf/img2enc: Allow to reverse frame order

Carl Eugen Hoyos cehoyos at ag.or.at
Wed Feb 24 11:32:24 CET 2016


Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > As requested on ffmpeg-user.
> 
> I'm a little ambivalent to this. Let me explain. You can 
> easily fix this with a shell script that creates links 
> from img-{1000...1}.jpg to img_2_{1...1000}.jpg and deletes 
> them after the ffmpeg run. This is super-trivial.

But the fact that this can be solved with other (non-FFmpeg) 
tools never seemed to be an argument here (and I believe this 
was usually a good thing): What has changed?
And don't you agree that using two steps to work around a 
smalls self-contained patch is generally a very bad idea?

> The problem I have with this is that we're slowly, and very 
> very hackishly, extending the sequential image support without 
> addressing its fundamental weakness as a non-unix tool:

I am not sure I understand so far, but it may be related.

> it doesn't use shell expansion. I'd want to use 
> ffmpeg -i img-*.jpg so it skips non-existing frames, 

Could you elaborate?
I believe this either cannot work, or does already work, 
depending on what you mean.
In any case, how is this muxer-related patch related to a 
demuxing issue you see?

> or use other unix tools to rev the order or whatever, 
> shell syntax is great for this but ffmpeg.exe does not 
> support any of that.

(I find it striking that you use "shell syntax" and "exe" 
in the same sentence...)

> So why hack in this one silly thing if we don't address 
> the fundamental problem instead, which would also fix this?

How would fix a demuxing issue (that I don't think was ever 
reported, but as said I may just misunderstand you) solve a 
real enhancement request by a real user that sounds easily 
understandable to me?

Carl Eugen



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list