Re: Maintaining video package

[PhilipNienhuis]

Carnë Draug wrote
> On 22 October 2015 at 08:06, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
> <

> prasannatsmkumar@

> > wrote:
>> As there is no maintainer for video package, I would like to be the
>> maintainer of video package.
> <snip>
> On another note, it may be better to forget about the video package
> and simply try to make Matlab compatible implementations of video
> functions.  

Or make ML compatible wrapper functions to the existing functions in the
video package; you'd have the best of both worlds then.  In a later stage a
new videowriter class could replace avifile and friends.

The one big missing piece is a getframe() function. That is still required
even for Matlab's videowriter function.


> This will attract more attention, will be more reviewed,
> will be more distributed, and will have more users.  That's what
> happened with the audio package.  It's you call though.

I think it is better to have a working video package within foreseeable
time, even with -if you wish: "legacy" functions, than waiting a long time
for a completely revamped version.
Just my .02 $c

Philip




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Maintaining-video-package-tp4673046p4673122.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.