0

How can I run the command below recursively on all directories and sub-directories within?

[someone@someones-pc ~]$ for i in *.mp4; do ffmpeg -i "$i" -i watermark.png -filter_complex "overlay=1623:25" /output/directory/"${i%.*}.mp4"; done

Right now the above command will only search for all .mp4's within the chosen directory and run the command(s) on them, however if I have another directory or deeper sub-directories containing more .mp4's this will not find them. How can I alter this command to run on other .mp4's that are also in other sub-directories and possibly even deeper within?

EDIT: (found this here on stackexchange)

How can this script be edited to work with my FFmpeg command above?

#!/bin/bash

WM=$HOME/public_html/image/catalog/logo-website/watermark.png  # This is the path to your watermark image
SCALE=100                          # This sets the scale % of your watermark image
STARTDIR="/home/whatever/images"   # This is the directory to start in

for imagedir in $( find $STARTDIR -type d )
do
  echo "Running in $imagedir ..."
  cd $imagedir
  file -i * | grep image | awk -F':' '{ print $1 }' | while read IMAGE
  do
    echo "Watermarking $IMAGE"
    composite -dissolve 40% -gravity SouthEast -quality 100 \( $WM -resize $SCALE% \) "$IMAGE" "$IMAGE"
  done
done
Rui F Ribeiro
  • 55,929
  • 26
  • 146
  • 227
Anonymous
  • 493
  • 6
  • 15
  • Can it be? Yes. Should it be? No - see [Why is looping over find's output bad practice?](https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/321697/why-is-looping-over-finds-output-bad-practice) for example (which also describes some alternatives) – steeldriver Feb 17 '19 at 01:55
  • Why would I care about the "find" command? That's not my focus. – Anonymous Feb 17 '19 at 02:15
  • 1
    The point of "duplicate" isn't to say your question is bad. Indeed, we can keep your question around so that people can find what you asked for, and then be directed to a good answer. Many good questions can have the same answer. We just don't want to duplicate answers. – Stephen Harris Feb 17 '19 at 02:42
  • Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. I didn't really know that exactly, so thanks. – Anonymous Feb 17 '19 at 03:31

0 Answers0