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

[D Richard Felker III]

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:02:11AM +0800, ephemeron at softhome.net wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> 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
> "crop="?
> 
> -vf ${PP},${CROP},${SCALE}
> 
> Sorry, if I'm belaboring the obvious.

Yep, that should be right.

Rich