Another attempt at fade in/out documentation

[DaleLore]

Hopefully I got all the uses of "frames" out. (Let me know if one snuck in) And I tried to be more specific by using the example that was used in the stackoverflow forum.

This is for Issue: OG #386 / First attempt #422 / Now this attempt #424

[kfrn]

Thanks, @DaleLore!

I wonder if we should make it even more generic? e.g.

-filter:v "fade=in:st=IN_POINT:d=DURATION, fade=out:st=OUT_POINT:d=DURATION" \
   -filter:a "afade=in:st=IN_POINT:d=DURATION, afade=out:st=OUT_POINT:d=DURATION"

With a note like:

• Where IN_POINT, OUT_POINT, DURATION are the time in seconds (expressed as integers).

And then maybe your specific example in the notes?

Or am I getting too finicky here 🤔😀

[kieranjol]

@kfrn - Not too finicky - I think the 44.1kHz should be removed to make it more generic. And i think just using the variables that @kfrn mentions would maybe be the best solution.

I've seen folks get confused by hardcoded values before when trying to scale it to their own use case.

[retokromer]

I agree with @kfrn and @kieranjol. On our internal website – of which many parts are publicly accessible – in some of our recipe we have a hard-coded version and the generic version of the commands. We made good experience with. Could this be a solution?

[kfrn]

I've seen folks get confused by hardcoded values before when trying to scale it to their own use case.

This is key, I think!

@DaleLore, did you want to update the PR? I'm also happy to make that change if you'd prefer.

[ablwr]

Thanks @DaleLore and everybody for taking this the extra mile!!

[retokromer]

Thank you @DaleLore !

[kieranjol]

Yay, thanks @dalelore et al