[FFmpeg-user] concat demuxer filter_complex (fade)

mail-login+ffmpeg at protonmail.com mail-login+ffmpeg at protonmail.com
Thu Apr 16 00:50:14 EEST 2020


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 10:44 AM, Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/15/20, Mark Filipak markfilipak.windows+ffmpeg at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 04/14/2020 02:40 PM, Ted Park wrote:
> > On 04/14/2020 09:43 AM, atticus via ffmpeg-user wrote:
> >
> > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 11:07 AM, Paul B Mahol onemda at gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I thought about this yesterday and came up with something like this:
> > > > > ffmpeg -i in.JPG -filter_complex "[0:0]loop=loop=-1:start=0:size=100
> > > > > [looped] ; [looped] trim=start=0:end=10 [trimmed] ; [trimmed]
> > > > > fade=type=in:start_frame=0:duration=3:color=black [fadeIn]" -map
> > > > > [fadeIn]
> > >
> > > > > -c:v h264 -r 60 out.mkv
> > > > > or this
> > > > > ffmpeg -loop 1 -i in.JPG -filter_complex "[0:0] trim=start=0:end=200
> > > > > [trimmed] ; [trimmed] fade=type=in:start_frame=0:duration=3:color=black
> > > > > [fadeIn]" -map [fadeIn] -c:v h264 out2.mkv
> > > > > (I'd just have to add a concat filter to the filter chain and an audio
> > > > > stream). I'm just not quite sure if there is a more smart way to do
> > > > > this
> > > > > (which for example would be a bit faster, since this is (in my opinion
> > > > > a bit
> > > > > slow for just duplicating a single frame). Well is there a smarter
> > > > > and/or faster way?
> > > > > And can you recommend which of these two commands above might be the
> > > > > better one?

> > > Hi,
> > > The filter is not in the version of ffmpeg you are using, you will need to
> > > get a more recent version for it to be there. Try downloading a recent
> > > static build from the website or try compiling it yourself. (It's not in
> > > any release version as far as I can tell)
> > > Regards,
> > > Ted Park
> >
> > May I suggest that the most expeditious thing to do is to simply address the
> > original question? I would do it myself if I only had a brain... a heart... the nerve.
>
> Original approach is very fragile and extremely complicated to work with.



Can you please elaborate what you mean by fragile and complicated?
I for my part find it very easy to work with, since you easily can split up the big file
into multiple smaller ones and concat them with the concat demuxer in the end. So you don't
need to know whether and if there is, which stream comes after to create one single filter.
In addition, in my option relying on a ffmpeg build that is not in any release version yes
is not to be considered more stable.

But please, I don't work that long with ffmpeg up to now and maybe I'm missing something.
So please explain further what you mean ;)




More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list