[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavfi/telecine: Mark telecined frames as interlaced

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol
> >> <onemda at gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> >>> > <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> >>> >> <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> >>> >> > <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer
> >>> >> > > <jamrial at gmail.com>:
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos
> >>> >> > > > > <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>:
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as
> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced,
> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive.
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached.
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you!
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined
> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield
> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached.
> >>> >
> >>> > Patch applied.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> This was never approved by me.
> >>
> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits.
> >
> > Lies, I was against that idea from start.
> >
> >>
> >>> So revert it ASAP!
> >>
> >> What should be changed about it?
> >
> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change.
> > I see no good out of it.
>
> I gonna revert this ASAP!

If you feel the patch is wrong, then you should present technical
arguments to that purpose. Otherwise, there was plenty time on the ML
to review it, and you only commented after it was on the ML for over a
week and commited, despite clearly knowing that it existed.

- Hendrik