Hi there, It looks like on the section <sect1 id="menc-feat-rescale"> of mencoder.xml, there's an un-updated information about defaut swscaler algorithm. XML reads the default is 0 (fast), whereas the man reads default is 2 (bicubic). I believe the correct one is 2, as the man has been recently updated with that information. Diego, should I correct such things (small) as I find them, instead of writing a mail each time? Regards, Guillaume
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 02:49:45PM +0000, Guillaume Poirier wrote:
It looks like on the section <sect1 id="menc-feat-rescale"> of mencoder.xml, there's an un-updated information about defaut swscaler algorithm. XML reads the default is 0 (fast), whereas the man reads default is 2 (bicubic). I believe the correct one is 2, as the man has been recently updated with that information.
Diego, should I correct such things (small) as I find them, instead of writing a mail each time?
Feel free to fix them immediately. Diego
Hi, On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:03:56 +0100, Diego Biurrun <diego@biurrun.de> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 02:49:45PM +0000, Guillaume Poirier wrote:
It looks like on the section <sect1 id="menc-feat-rescale"> of mencoder.xml, there's an un-updated information about defaut swscaler algorithm. XML reads the default is 0 (fast), whereas the man reads default is 2 (bicubic). I believe the correct one is 2, as the man has been recently updated with that information.
Diego, should I correct such things (small) as I find them, instead of writing a mail each time?
Feel free to fix them immediately.
Thanks for your trust ;-) Change done. Guillaume
Guillaume Poirier wrote ( On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 02:49:45PM +0000 ):
Hi there, It looks like on the section <sect1 id="menc-feat-rescale"> of mencoder.xml, there's an un-updated information about defaut swscaler algorithm. XML reads the default is 0 (fast), whereas the man reads default is 2 (bicubic). I believe the correct one is 2, as the man has been recently updated with that information. It would be much better if you _knew_ it for sure. It is BICUBIC btw. I know that documentation is no strict Science, but it should be accurate and not just guessings.
Anyway good you corrected it now. Alex (beastd)
Hi, On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:08:12 +0100, Alexander Strasser <eclipse7@gmx.net> wrote:
I know that documentation is no strict Science, but it should be accurate and not just guessings.
Anyway good you corrected it now.
Ok, that's a wise suggestion... but I happened to have check it myself when the man got updated, so I was pretty confident I was right... :-) Regards, Guillaume
participants (3)
-
Alexander Strasser -
Diego Biurrun -
Guillaume Poirier