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

ephemeron at softhome.net ephemeron at softhome.net
Wed May 7 03:02:11 CEST 2003

On Tue, 6 May 2003 13:24:57 -0400,
D Richard Felker III wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:09:19PM +0800,
> ephemeron at softhome.net wrote:
> > 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.

Thanks for the clarification.  So am I right in assuming that the
proper place for suboption "pp=" is now before "scale=" and

-vf ${PP},${CROP},${SCALE}

Sorry, if I'm belaboring the obvious.

More information about the MPlayer-users mailing list