sön 2021-06-27 klockan 12:03 +0200 skrev Marton Balint: > > On Sat, 26 Jun 2021, emcodem wrote: > > > In case there is a Footer, regarding to SMPTE 377 all versions, the > > metadata in Footer shall be correct (where in Header it can be incomplete).. > > If there is no footer (stream, truncated...) it will still work as usual. > > Tested with a huge set of files and compared old/new ffprobes, it will not > > change lots of metadata, mainly duration and in some cases start timecode. > > Without this change, especially Duration would be often inaccurate because > > it is unknown in header and calculated from bitrate. > > > > The new sample files should be added to \fate-suite\mxf, as i do not have > > an account to upload the files, i shared them on wetransfer: > > > > https://we.tl/t-MVmyG2mZHq > > > > omneon_6.4.1.0.1_xdcam_truncated.mxf > > An original Omneon File from an older Version, file is truncated. It shall > > prove that Metadata is being parsed even when there is no Footer. > > > > omneon_8.3.0.0_xdcam_startc_footer.mxf > > An original Omneon File from a recent Version with "better" Metadata in > > Footer than in Header. I needed to hexedit this file and set the MP and SP > > start timecode in header to 0. > > This test is for proving that metadata from Footer is preferred. > > > > --- > > libavformat/mxfdec.c | 2 +- > > tests/fate/mxf.mak | 10 + > > tests/ref/fate/mxf-probe-xdcamhd-oit | 442 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/ref/fate/mxf-probe-xdcamhd-tcfooter | 442 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 895 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 tests/ref/fate/mxf-probe-xdcamhd-oit > > create mode 100644 tests/ref/fate/mxf-probe-xdcamhd-tcfooter > > > > diff --git a/libavformat/mxfdec.c b/libavformat/mxfdec.c > > index 7b40076fb4..a7f552c753 100644 > > --- a/libavformat/mxfdec.c > > +++ b/libavformat/mxfdec.c > > @@ -1402,7 +1402,7 @@ static void *mxf_resolve_strong_ref(MXFContext *mxf, > > UID *strong_ref, enum MXFMe > > > > if (!strong_ref) > > return NULL; > > - for (i = 0; i < mxf->metadata_sets_count; i++) { > > + for (i = mxf->metadata_sets_count-1; i >= 0; i--) { > > Do we have to store all metadata in the first place? Why not do the > decision which one is better when adding the metadata set?
This could be done, but it entails rewriting much of the demuxer > Order of > parsing depends on the file, we usually do header, footer and then > backwards the partitions. So after your patch metadata in the second > partition will have priority over footer, which is also against spec I > believe. I was going to say this is not right because mxf_read_partition_pack() will reverse the order in which partitions are added when parsing backwards, so everything ends up in the correct order. But this doesn't apply to mxf->metadata_sets, only mxf->partitions.. We've had a similar discussion on here roughly a month ago. There's a bit of finessing around the order in which to prefer any one metadata set. IIRC something like: FooterPartition, then any Complete non-footer Partition, then the latest OpenPartition /Tomas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
