[FFmpeg-devel] attribute_deprecated int avpicture_deinterlace ??

[wm4]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:54:52 +0100
Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 30.11.2013, at 15:37, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Stefano Sabatini <stefasab at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On date Friday 2013-11-29 08:30:51 -0500, Don Moir encoded:
> >>> 
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefano Sabatini"
> >>> <stefasab at gmail.com>
> >>> To: "FFmpeg development discussions and patches" <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> >>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:09 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] attribute_deprecated int avpicture_deinterlace ??
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> On date Friday 2013-11-29 09:06:57 -0500, Don Moir encoded:
> >>>>> deinterlacing is directly related to decoding in that you want a
> >>>>> properly decoded image and not some effect.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Looks like we are now pointed to avlibfilter and yadif. I have no
> >>>>> use for avlibfilter so I should link it so I can deinterlace ?
> >>>>> avlibfilter is just excess baggage from my viewpoint.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Hate to bring this up late but seems silly or am I the only one that
> >>>>> thinks that? Hope I am misunderstanding something.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Possibly: we could extract the yadif code and move it somehow to the
> >>>> library (libavfilter public low-level API or something, so you don't
> >>>> need to build a filtergraph to apply it). It might be non trivial.
> >>> 
> >>> Would be good if avpicture_deinterlace was improved possibly using
> >>> yadif and left where it is. Other than that, I would probably roll
> >>> my own rather than use avfilter if avpicture_deinterlace goes away.
> >> 
> >> What's exactly your problem with libavfilter (please no trolling)? The
> >> main problem seems that you are not willing to configure a filtergraph
> >> for that, so the alternative I proposed is a low level deinterlacing
> >> API, based on yadif which could be used without filters.
> > 
> > A simple filtergraph just for deinterlacing is so trivial that I
> > wouldn't let this argument count for anything.
> 
> I don't know. If it's more than 5 lines of code (and I suspect it's a lot more) it might be useful to have a function that just passes things through one single filter...
> Though it would probably still need a create and destroy function in addition, so I don't know if such a simplified API is worth it...

Yeah, the current libavfilter API is pretty bad. Look at all the boiler
plate even ffplay.c/ffmpeg.c have to use, even though they don't have
to be compatible with anything else.