x264 enforcing --level instead of warning?

[turbojet]

Also, such a safeguard would be extraordinarily annoying, as whenever I do development and need an output file, I output to the same file repeatedly a few hundred times.

Why would you use --level in that case?

Anyways, this thread is really phenomenally stupid. There is a way to convince developers to add more failsafes into their applications: this isn't it.

Why should one have to be convinced to change something so it does what it really says?
How else would you should suggest rather then opening a discussion about it?

Sure most of the posts in this thread simply avoid the real issue by saying use a gui which is irrelevant to my proposal as it is.

[Dark Shikari]

Why would you use --level in that case?I'm referring to the overwriting whine.

[turbojet]

I'm referring to the overwriting whine.

Frankly while a lot of things were repeated like: use a gui, x264 isn't supposed to fix stupidity, and not wanting a switch they never use forcing others to do what the switch is documented to do. It's a fairly intelligent conversation.

Although I wish people would focus more on my question in the original post about potential drawbacks for which I've heard none except players playing non-compliant files all of a sudden after changing level.

Posts like that smiley face were completely irrelevant to the thread and they only welcomed a personal attack by someone who just jumped into the thread, that's way off base and clearly violates rule 3 and 4.

So let's please stay on topic.

Dark_Shikari asking you directly do you see any drawbacks to --level enforcing the maximum allowed settings if exceeded?
For what legitimate reasons do you have for or against doing such a thing?

[Trahald]

The problem is level setting is a needed function in x264, even in its current form. Some applications (authoring software, web apps, etc) may want a minimum level set so for example, if I wanted to use a resolution that would fit into level 3 but need the stream to read level 4, i wont have to run the output stream through a program after x264 to change the level later on. Its only illegal to exceed a level setting , not to go below it.

And while the 'stupid' comments are harsh (and I suggest should be avoided), the point they are trying to make is valid. x264 is aimed toward advanced users and is not made to protect the user from itself. and again as i stated above, the level setting has a legitimate reason to exist in its current form. (i dont see anything in --help that says it does anything more than simply specify a level with the context of the how the word 'specify' is used in other places of --help).

[turbojet]

The problem is level setting is a needed function in x264, even in its current form. Some applications (authoring software, web apps, etc) may want a minimum level set so for example, if I wanted to use a resolution that would fit into level 3 but need the stream to read level 4, i wont have to run the output stream through a program after x264 to change the level later on. Its only illegal to exceed a level setting , not to go below it.

The only situation I'm talking about is when --ref and --vbv exceed the level when --level is used. In your example if you have --ref and --vbv at or below level 4 settings you can use --level 4 even if it's completely compliant to L3 it will still read L4. Again my suggestion is not meant to change anything that's legal. It only changes illegal settings to legal when level is called.

Aren't you h264info developer?
If so, you may have the most insight on this. Have you ever heard of a time when setting an illegal level has benefited?

If this isn't possible, I can't think of a logical reason not to do what I suggest. The only other thing that could be done is to lie to users by forcing a level lower then what it really conforms to.

And while the 'stupid' comments are harsh (and I suggest should be avoided), the point they are trying to make is valid. x264 is aimed toward advanced users and is not made to protect the user from itself. and again as i stated above, the level setting has a legitimate reason to exist in its current form. (i dont see anything in --help that says it does anything more than simply specify a level with the context of the how the word 'specify' is used in other places of --help).

The smiley face is completely off topic which is rule #3. This post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1284339#post1284339) is mostly irrelevant (rule 3) and personal attacking (rule 4). I'm not really offended by either and not asking for strikes but they surely aren't needed.

It's not all about protecting the user who doesn't spend weeks researching and but currently -level completely tricks the common user. Level outside of x264 is a very common term to specify H.264 capability. Since it exists in x264 why shouldn't it follow these same terms?

When I put --level 4.1 in x264 I'd expect it to follow L4.1 no matter what the other settings are, I don't expect it give a warning, continue encoding and tell you that this illegal 4.1 file is showing me its 4.1. Mass confusion.

[kemuri-_9]

When I put --level 4.1 in x264 I'd expect it to follow L4.1 no matter what the other settings are, I don't expect it give a warning, continue encoding and tell you that this illegal 4.1 file is showing me its 4.1. Mass confusion.

welcome to the real world, it doesn't always work like you want it.

...
this thread has turned you into demanding something no one cares about implementing for their own justified reasons.

do it yourself.
if you can't do it now, learn to.
that's the beauty of open source after all.

demanding it more is just going to make people not help you out:
i.e. i actually made a patch that would go about doing this (taking some piddly amount of time of <15 minutes),
but i am not going to post it **********************

[turbojet]

welcome to the real world, it doesn't always work like you want it.

...
this thread has turned you into demanding something no one cares about implementing for their own justified reasons.

Name one time I demanded someone to do something, I've simply asked a question and the feedback has been mostly irrelevant (gui, changing legal files, situations where --level is never used)

do it yourself.
if you can't do it now, learn to.
that's the beauty of open source after all.

demanding it more is just going to make people not help you out:
i.e. i actually made a patch that would go about doing this (taking some piddly amount of time of <15 minutes),
but i am not going to post it **************************

I've already told you a patch would not benefit me whatsoever but it would benefit a lot of others including gui coders.

My whole intent in bringing this up is to discuss an x264 caveat that results in an encode that goes against H.264 standards.

If you don't have something constructive to say don't say it. I haven't insulted anyone in this thread and I really don't understand why you are insulting me.

[Guest]

Gents, the insults have to stop, or rule 4 strikes will be applied.

Resorting to ad hominems is usually a great sign that your arguments are deficient.

[ChronoCross]

A warning message should be sufficient. I don't think i want x264 to get into the habit of changing encoding settings itself....even if I am being an idiot.

[laserfan]

Resorting to ad hominems is usually a great sign that your arguments are deficient.Thank you neuron2 for this statement, which required that I look-up "ad hominems"! :o

I have (therefore) finally learned something from this thread! Thanks! :D

[turbojet]

Gents, the insults have to stop, or rule 4 strikes will be applied.

Resorting to ad hominems is usually a great sign that your arguments are deficient.

Thanks

A warning message should be sufficient. I don't think i want x264 to get into the habit of changing encoding settings itself....even if I am being an idiot.

x264 currently changes some settings if they are against H.264 standard such as: --direct temporal --tff.

Can you give me a detailed example of how you would be affected by what I suggest?

[Dark Shikari]

x264 currently changes some settings if they are against H.264 standard such as: --direct temporal --tffThat's not against the standard, that's because x264 doesn't support temporal direct mode in interlaced encoding. :rolleyes:

[Trahald]

This thread already was a bit unkind, but now the same points (on both sides) are being repeated. It appears we are at a dead lock. Thread closed.