[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 4/9] avfilter/af_flanger: use rint instead of floor hack
Paul B Mahol
onemda at gmail.com
Wed Dec 2 13:39:21 CET 2015
On 12/2/15, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanagadde at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/2/15, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanagadde at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanagadde at gmail.com>
>>> libavfilter/af_flanger.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/libavfilter/af_flanger.c b/libavfilter/af_flanger.c
>>> index f8ec830..a92367c 100644
>>> --- a/libavfilter/af_flanger.c
>>> +++ b/libavfilter/af_flanger.c
>>> @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static int config_input(AVFilterLink *inlink)
>>> return AVERROR(ENOMEM);
>>> ff_generate_wave_table(s->wave_shape, AV_SAMPLE_FMT_FLT, s->lfo,
>>> - floor(s->delay_min * inlink->sample_rate +
>>> + rint(s->delay_min * inlink->sample_rate),
>>> s->max_samples - 2., 3 * M_PI_2);
>>> return av_samples_alloc_array_and_samples(&s->delay_buffer, NULL,
>>> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
>>> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
>> Have you checked that output is same?
> Well if is not, rint is more accurate than floor, this is the whole
> point of the patch. What I can tell is that FATE passes.
> One can craft input so that floor(x + 0.5) is not identical to
> rint(x), and that is the point of these patches - to be more accurate
> when we can be. A simple example: what happens at half-integers, i.e
> 1.5? Then, floor always returns the next up, e.g 2.0, while rint(x)
> rounds to the nearest even integer in accord with IEEE-754. This is
> done to reduce rounding biases on floating point numbers - think of a
> large number of half integer samples, the floor hack results in
> consistent upward bias, the rint (or llrint, lrint more generally)
> avoids this.
> I care about technical purity of filters; you seem to care about
> copying it over from some other place and matching another filter
> exactly, regardless of the quality of such filters. In that case, I
> think FFmpeg's monolithic filter design needs to be reconsidered; we
> should allow seamless integration of external filters. These two goals
> are at odds with each other, and I will always personally prefer the
> first, since it actually allows greater flexibility for improvements.
> Ultimately, I am not a maintainer for these things and I have no say
> on the matter or personal interest in it.
On 2nd look, patch should be fine.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel