FFmpeg 8.0

No. There is impossible situation between filter and the main program, where the filter arguments are not used and the main line is left to deal with leftovers.

If you could actually read and study those two solutions, you could notice that the grok has moved that stuff into separate file.

Re: FFmpeg 8.0

#6

Post by rendx » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 1:31 PM UTC

timonoko wrote: post #2

[flagged]

I guess you're getting downvoted since the claim that "FFmpeg is now somewhat broken" remains unsubstantiated. You're relying on information from LLMs which by definition are closer to random guesses than anything else. Effectively, what you're saying is that you cannot be bothered to learn the actual, albeit complex, syntax of FFmpeg to solve your problem, which is totally fine and up to you, but your conclusion that the tool is broken is like saying "this car is broken" when you don't know how to operate it and drive.

Re: FFmpeg 8.0

#7

Post by timonoko » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 1:48 PM UTC

rendx wrote: post #6

timonoko wrote: post #2

[flagged]

I guess you're getting downvoted since the claim that "FFmpeg is now somewhat broken" remains unsubstantiated. You're relying on information from LLMs which by definition are closer to random guesses than anything else. Effectively, what you're saying is that you cannot be bothered to learn the actual, albeit complex, syntax of FFmpeg to solve your problem, which is totally fine and up to you, but your conclusion tha…

The idea was of course that someone else, one with working brain could run the example script and discover the underlying issue, which is weird and more complex.

Re: FFmpeg 8.0

#8

Post by Neywiny » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

timonoko wrote: post #7

rendx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you're getting downvoted since the claim that "FFmpeg is now somewhat broken" remains unsubstantiated. You're relying on information from LLMs which by definition are closer to random guesses than anything else. Effectively, what you're saying is that you cannot be bothered to learn the actual, albeit complex, syntax of FFmpeg to solve your problem, which is totally fine and up to you, but your conclusion tha…

The idea was of course that someone else, one with working brain could run the example script and discover the underlying issue, which is weird and more complex.

A great way to get help is to ask for it. I'd imagine the ffmpeg community would be a lot more open to helping you if you didn't start off by saying their tool is broken, though

Re: FFmpeg 8.0

#9

Post by timonoko » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 2:36 PM UTC

Neywiny wrote: post #8

timonoko wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea was of course that someone else, one with working brain could run the example script and discover the underlying issue, which is weird and more complex.

A great way to get help is to ask for it. I'd imagine the ffmpeg community would be a lot more open to helping you if you didn't start off by saying their tool is broken, though

It is clearly broken and very-very-very deeply so. On organizational level.

Quote Gemini:

  This error is the "smoking gun." It confirms that no matter how we quote the command, your shell is treating the comma as a separator for the FFmpeg command itself rather than a character inside the filter.

Re: FFmpeg 8.0

#10

Post by rigrassm » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

timonoko wrote: post #9

Neywiny wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great way to get help is to ask for it. I'd imagine the ffmpeg community would be a lot more open to helping you if you didn't start off by saying their tool is broken, though

It is clearly broken and very-very-very deeply so. On organizational level. Quote Gemini: This error is the "smoking gun." It confirms that no matter how we quote the command, your shell is treating the comma as a separator for the FFmpeg command itself rather than a character inside the filter.

Soooooooooo, your SHELL is having issues with quotes, not ffmpeg.