[FFmpeg-user] 'image trails'

Mark Filipak markfilipak.windows+ffmpeg at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 14:43:55 EEST 2020

On 04/08/2020 07:37 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 4/8/20, Mark Filipak <markfilipak.windows+ffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Command employing 'interleave' filter in lieu of 'mix' filter:
>> fmpeg -i "M:\Test Videos\23.976p.mkv" -filter_complex
>> "split=3[B][C][D],[B]select='bitand(not(eq(mod(n+1\,10)\,3))\,not(eq(mod(n+1\,10)\,8)))'[E],[C]select='eq(mod(n+1\,10)\,3)'[G],[D]select='eq(mod(n+1\,10)\,8)'[H],[E][G][H]interleave=3"
>> -map 0 -c:v libx264 -crf 28 -c:a copy -c:s copy "C:\AVOut\23.976p.MKV"
>> The 'interleave' filter temporally muxes 2 (or more) streams. It orders the
>> stream frames based on
>> their time stamps (with extensive buffering).
>> This is discouraging.
>> The 'mix' filter is no good. It's single-threaded. I've been waiting over
>> 2-1/2 hours to finish
> This is simple not true. Why are you insisting on spreading false information?
> What is your agenda against FFmpeg?

Paul, do you really think I have bad intent? The 'interleave' filter does not close on completion. 
At least, not on my system. I tried it twice.

>> interleaving a 10-second video that ordinarily takes about 10 seconds to
>> transcode. According to
>> Windows' Sysinternals Process Explorer, the process *is* alive and
>> executing.
>> A better solution?
>> Better would be a filter that accepts a template in lieu of time stamps. It
>> would simply fetch and
>> process the stream frames in the order they are presented to the inputs
>> (fifo-style), and interleave
>> the input streams according to the template.
>> In my case, the filter would have 3 inputs and the template would be: 1 1 2
>> 1 1 1 1 3 1 1.
>> Do *you* know of such a filter? Or have a better idea?
> Yes, I know that filter very well, just unsubscribe from this mailing-list.

Do you not care at all about your reputation?

More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list