Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
This should actually not be marked as a defect (as it just follow the get/set
pattern), but as an enhancement (I don't know how to reclassify the bug once
created).
Original comment by adle...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2013 at 11:29
Let's look at FFmpegFrameGrabber.getFrameRate():
@Override public double getFrameRate() {
if (video_st == null) {
return super.getFrameRate();
} else {
AVRational r = video_st.r_frame_rate();
return (double)r.num() / r.den();
}
}
and OpenCVFrameGrabber.getFrameRate():
@Override public double getFrameRate() {
return capture == null ? super.getFrameRate() : (int)cvGetCaptureProperty(capture, CV_CAP_PROP_FPS);
}
Should they be doing anything differently?
Original comment by samuel.a...@gmail.com
on 10 Mar 2013 at 1:23
There is something strange somewhere. If I specify some huge number for the
framerate, like 1250, I get the message:
The driver changed the time per frame from 1/1250 to 1/226
And getFrameRate() returns 226. However, this webcam in this mode only supports
125 fps (which are the ones I actually am getting).
If I specify a lower value, like 200, getFrameRate() just returns 200.
May there be a different way to retrieve that framerate?
For example (I don't know if it really applies):
http://libav-users.943685.n4.nabble.com/Retrieving-Frames-Per-Second-FPS-td94653
3.html
Original comment by adle...@gmail.com
on 10 Mar 2013 at 1:55
Well the best would be to check what the ffmpeg program does, and if that does
what you need, then to implement something similar in
FFmpegFrameGrabber.getFrameRate()...
Original comment by samuel.a...@gmail.com
on 10 Mar 2013 at 11:22
Issue 391 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by samuel.a...@gmail.com
on 4 Jan 2014 at 2:15
JavaCV 0.10 now returns the value of `AVStream.avg_frame_rate` instead of
`r_frame_rate`:
https://github.com/bytedeco/javacv/issues/63
I hope this fixes this issue as well. Let me know if you still have problems,
and thanks for reporting!
Original comment by samuel.a...@gmail.com
on 27 Dec 2014 at 3:19
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
adle...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2013 at 8:05