[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Implement pixdesc.h:write_line()

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 09:15:41PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Thursday 2009-04-02 01:27:18 +0200, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:02:34AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > Hi all.
> > > 
> > > Formats when possible have been tested with the vf_pixdesc_test
> > > filter, included the monowhite and monoblack formats, with something
> > > like:
> > > 
> > > ffplay in.avi -vfilters "format=gray,pixdesc_test"
> > > 
> > > Some formats cannot be tested this way, for example all the formats
> > > not supported as output by sws, anyway I think that it's quite safe to
> > > apply it anyway.
> > > 
> > > Many interesting problems remains opened, for example:
> > > 
> > > * How are we supposed to deal with HW accelerated pixel formats?  Are
> > >   we supposed to add an entry in the pixdescs arrays for each of them?
> > > 
> > 
> > > * It's not clear which should be the interaction between lsws and
> > >   the pixdescs.
> > > 
> > >   Currently lsws doesn't depend on lavc, since the pixfmt descriptors
> > >   may and should be used in libsws to avoid code duplication
> > >   (e.g. sws_format_name()), we may either add lavc to the lsws
> > >   dependancies *or* move all the pixdesc stuff to lavu.
> > 
> > why would lavc need the pixdescs ? if it doesnt they could be moved to sws
> 
> To retain in lavc all the functionality currently implemented in
> imgconvert, which currently uses pixfmtinfo which we're trying to
> dump and substitute with pixdescs.
> 
> Alternatively we could make lavc depend on lsws, but somehow doesn't
> sound like a great idea...
>  
> > also let me repeat, 1 patch per mail please!
> > if we ever implement the suggested patch tracker all mails with multiple
> > patches will "disapear".
> > its easy to search subjs for [PATCH], easy to search for looks ok and
> > applied but this breaks down if there are multiple patches per mail
> > besides its alot harder for me to keep track and i suspect also for
> > others independant of any fancy tools
> > also its hard to reply to a subset of patches in this mess mails.
> 
> OK sorry, the patches attached were meant to help to actually test the
> write_line() patch. I'll repost them to separate threads.
> 
> Patch updated with the suggestions by Ben.
[...]
> +        while (w--) {
> +            int val = *src++;
> +            put_bits(&pb, depth, val);
> +            if (step - depth)

> +                skip_put_bits(&pb, step - depth);

i suspect this will randomize the bits


[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Thouse who are best at talking, realize last or never when they are wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090402/0893b1f6/attachment.pgp>