[FFmpeg-user] ff* command lines that work

[Mark Filipak]

On 03/09/2020 05:05 PM, Rob Hallam wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 20:50, Mark Filipak <
> markfilipak.windows+ffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> It appears to me that ffmpeg commands have the following structure:
>> *snip*
> 
> This will probably complete someone else's FOSS bingo card, but if
> you are intent on putting in many hours of work to figure out ffmpeg
> options, you might be served by browsing the source code.

Browsing the source is the least effective option. The most effective 
method (for me) is to collect and analyze command lines that are known 
to work. That's what I've requested.

> (That's "It's all documented in the source", for anyone playing
> along at home)
> 
>> I haverequested folks to submit command lines that are known to
>> work. I hope to get thousands of them.
>> I hope they will send them to me as private messages.
> 
> One of the great things about this ML, and QA sites is that the
> questions and responses are public. Asking for thousands of
> private examples runs contrary to that.

Yes, it is contrary to public work, but this is not public work and 
making it public could mislead people before the results are known. Of 
course, I will share the results, if any, with this list and with the 
ffmpeg project. That 'said', people are free to submit their working 
command lines to this list. I don't care how I get them.

> That being said, I suspect people would glady send you
> personal examples on the basis of private consultancy. Do
> you have a budget?

Sure.

> My main question is why won't commands from this ML
> to other users, and answers to questions on QA sites
> from the same people suffice for your purpose?...

People with problems submit command lines that don't work. When the 
command lines are corrected, that status is rarely disclosed or 
acknowledged.

> Or to
> put it another way: how will people sending you
> thousands of examples know they are being helpful?

I will thank them.

> I mean, the `rm' example (presumably) works, but
> that didn't seem to be what you were looking for.

Are you serious?