Hi Michael, Sorry, I was waaay out of line. You gave a good explanation of the issue and your position, which is important since the terminology is confusing. I had no business making an argument out of it, and I sincerely hope this does not sour future discussion. And you're right, this is all a matter of taste, making the flame ridiculous. So long as it's clear what the fields are and which was first, it doesn't matter. If we can move past my stupidity, I'd like your opinion. Why is one flag not sufficient? Again, my apologies, Billy Michael H. Schimek (mschimek@xxxxxx): > Billy Biggs wrote: > > > > You then give a lecture: > > Your replies did not reveal an advanced level of knowledge, or if we're > talking about the same things at all. I just tried to be precise. > > > If you give me an interlaced frame, and it's a complete frame (or one > > cropped to scanlines mod 2), 'top field first' tells me temporal order > > and is sufficient. However, if you give me a sequential mode frame, I'd > > like to know two things. Whether the first field in the buffer is a top > > field or a bottom field, and then, which was captured first, top or > > bottom. That's it. > > Sorry, I'm unable to express that any better than I did. Submit your own > field spec if you must. > > > My point for having a flag is so that I can have some code > > independent of PAL or NTSC, and help driver writers whos cards don't > > give them the benefit of whether we're in F1 or F2. See the VirtualDub > > deinterlacing plugins that try to detect whether the frames received are > > top or bottom field first... Let's avoid that... > > You're barking up the wrong tree. I proposed two flags clarifying the > field order. I'm well aware of the advantages and disadvantages. So > is Gerd. He wanted a simpler fixed order. As maintainer he has the right > of a final decision. I have no time to waste arguing about matters of > taste and carry his ideas as much as he respects mine. > > > > much thought behind the api you just won't find there. See old spec at > > > http://www.thedirks.org/v4l2/v4l2.htm > > > > I've read it. I still find that people are confused. I'll probably > > write something and contribute it somewhere anyway. > > Over the past years v4l2 did not receive the attention by skilled people > it deserves. I'll be glad when you do. However I can and will not work > with someone more interested to demonstrate his flaming talents than in > constructive discussion, no matter what the cause. > > Michael > > > > _______________________________________________ > Video4linux-list mailing list > Video4linux-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
