[MPlayer-users] Conflict between -vf and -vop suboption parsing

D Richard Felker III dalias at aerifal.cx
Tue May 6 19:24:57 CEST 2003

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:09:19PM +0800, ephemeron at softhome.net wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> Which is obsoleted, -vf or -vop?  Both options work with my cvs
> version of MPlayer. However, -vop ${SCALE},${CROP} works like -vf
> ${CROP},${SCALE}.  For example, -vop ${CROP},${SCALE} will bail
> out if the "cropped area is out of original".  To produce a
> similar "crash" with -vf I have to reverse the suboptions to -vf
> ${SCALE},${CROP}.  Shouldn't the two options produce the same
> results?  Shouldn't mplayer at least parse their suboptions in
> the same order?  Better yet, why not do away with the other
> option?  It's confusing!

No, that's the whole point of -vf. -vop has always been backwards and
that was confusing, and the name was dumb/inconsistent to begin with,
so -vf was added to replace it and do things in the forward order.
BUT, -vop was left in for backwards compatibility with old scripts and
whatnot. So you should use -vf now. -vop is deprecated.


More information about the MPlayer-users mailing list