> @ Andrea,
> I forgot to ask if you have a chance to make some screenshots examples?
> I think it will ease a lot to clarify the text. ;)
@Terje
One idea is to put some pictures, another is to make a video to put
privately on CinGG's Youtube channel; so you can only watch it from
the link in the manual. It seems to me that too many pictures in an
appendix weighs down the manual too much. However, I don't have a
problem with putting pictures up.
With your other file (5sec_dv01_03.dv) what test do you propose to do?
One thing that is still unclear to me is why CinGG and ffmpeg indicate
SAR instead of PAR.
May be because for codecs internal work SAR feels more important? If PAR (in the sense of ratio between coded picture width and height) can be derived in exact way from SAR and DAR - then I see why ffmpeg opted to not carry it .. But confusing, yes.
How this affects the workflow and whether their
SAR is something new that applies to both normal SAR and PAR, or
whether it just changes the name but remains a "pixel aspect ratio."
I guess from ffprobe reports it should be quite clear that by SAR they mean pixel (one of them, not whole picture) dimensional aspect?
Sorry, not read text yet ....