[MPlayer-DOCS] wrong names for encoders in man page

[The Wanderer]

mail at kraymer.de wrote:

> Hello folks,
> 
> recently someone posted to mplayer-users:
> 
>> Using -ovc x264enc as man page says does not work. -ovc x264 is
>> correct.
> 
> .. and I think he's correct. Same goes for xvid. -oac lame doesn't
> work for me either, it's mp3lame.

And this is specified in the man page. Where does it say that 'lame' is
a valid value for -oac?

> This of course makes the following statement wrong:
> 
>> You can specify codec specific encoding parameters using the
>> following syntax:
> .
>>.TP
>>.B \-<codec>opts <option1[=value],option2,...>
> 
> .. because you'll have to use -ovc x264 and -x264*enc*opts

Yes, you will. I don't see any way in which the existing documentation
disagrees with this; the only place it mentions 'x264enc' is as a
possible value for <codec> *in the string '-<codec>opts'*, not as a
possible value for '-ovc <codec>'.

The only possible problem I see is that the valid values for '-ovc
<codec>' are not mentioned in the man page, which is intentional because
not all of them are necessarily available in any given build; the man
page does say to see '-ovc help' for a list.

> Find attached patch for a fix of at least the encoder names I could
> test on my system.

>  .B \-<codec>opts <option1[=value],option2,...>
>  .
>  .PP
> -Where <codec> may be: lavc, xvidenc, lame, toolame, twolame,
> -nuv, xvfw, faac, x264enc, mpeg, lavf.
> +Where <codec> may be: lavc, xvid, mp3lame, toolame, twolame,
> +nuv, xvfw, faac, x264, mpeg, lavf.

This says that '-x264opts' is a valid option, which it is not; the
correct option is '-x264encopts'. Similarly, it says that '-mp3lameopts'
is a valid option when the correct option is '-lameopts', and that
'-xvidopts' is valid when the correct option is '-xvidencopts'.

> -.SS lame (\-lameopts)
> +.SS mp3lame (\-lameopts)

> -.SS xvidenc (\-xvidencopts)
> +.SS xvid (\-xvidencopts)
>  .

> -.SS x264enc (\-x264encopts)
> +.SS x264 (\-x264encopts)

I don't think this is necessary. These lines appear to be intentionally
redundant; the part outside of the parentheses is the value for <codec>
from the above list (which, again, I'll note is specifically a list of
strings which are valid in '-<codec>opts' options), and the part inside
the parentheses is the name of the actual option after the substitution
is performed. Nowhere is there any indication that these are supposed to
be the names of the actual codecs as expected by -o?c <codec>.

That's not to say that the option names should necessarily not be
changed, to avoid possible confusion - but doing so would, at minimum,
involve changing the names of the option in the actual code rather than
just changing the documentation.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.