On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Limin Wang <lance.lmw...@gmail.com>
If the version of libopenh264 >= 1.8, we can't configured main profile as
expected, below is the testing cli:
ffmpeg -y -f lavfi -i testsrc -c:v libopenh264 -profile:v main -frames:v 1
test.ts
It'll report:
[libopenh264 @ 0x5638300] Unsupported profile, select EProfileIdc PRO_BASELINE
in libopenh264.
Signed-off-by: Limin Wang <lance.lmw...@gmail.com>
---
libavcodec/libopenh264enc.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/libopenh264enc.c b/libavcodec/libopenh264enc.c
index a55bef8..995ee37 100644
--- a/libavcodec/libopenh264enc.c
+++ b/libavcodec/libopenh264enc.c
@@ -220,26 +220,27 @@ static av_cold int svc_encode_init(AVCodecContext *avctx)
#endif
switch (s->profile) {
-#if OPENH264_VER_AT_LEAST(1, 8)
case FF_PROFILE_H264_HIGH:
+ s->profile = PRO_HIGH;
I don't think we should reuse the s->profile field for this value here.
In practice, both FF_PROFILE_H264_HIGH and PRO_HIGH have the same values,
but they're enums from different namespaces, so would it be clearer to use
one variable for profiles set with FF_PROFILE_* and one with the PRO_*
values?
param.iEntropyCodingModeFlag = 1;
av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_VERBOSE, "Using CABAC, "
"select EProfileIdc PRO_HIGH in libopenh264.\n");
break;
-#else
case FF_PROFILE_H264_MAIN:
+ s->profile = PRO_MAIN;
param.iEntropyCodingModeFlag = 1;
av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_VERBOSE, "Using CABAC, "
"select EProfileIdc PRO_MAIN in libopenh264.\n");
break;
-#endif
case FF_PROFILE_H264_CONSTRAINED_BASELINE:
case FF_PROFILE_UNKNOWN:
+ s->profile = PRO_BASELINE;
param.iEntropyCodingModeFlag = 0;
av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_VERBOSE, "Using CAVLC, "
"select EProfileIdc PRO_BASELINE in libopenh264.\n");
break;
default:
+ s->profile = PRO_BASELINE;
param.iEntropyCodingModeFlag = 0;
av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_WARNING, "Unsupported profile, "
"select EProfileIdc PRO_BASELINE in libopenh264.\n");
@@ -251,6 +252,7 @@ static av_cold int svc_encode_init(AVCodecContext *avctx)
param.sSpatialLayers[0].fFrameRate = param.fMaxFrameRate;
param.sSpatialLayers[0].iSpatialBitrate = param.iTargetBitrate;
param.sSpatialLayers[0].iMaxSpatialBitrate = param.iMaxBitrate;
+ param.sSpatialLayers[0].uiProfileIdc = s->profile;
So this assignment is what was missing, and was what caused the incorrect
conclusion in d3a7bdd4ac54349aea9150a234478635d50ebd87? I think it'd be
good to explicitly spell this out in the commit message, saying that
d3a7bdd4ac54349aea9150a234478635d50ebd87 was based on incorrect
conclusions because we had missed to set uiProfileIdc.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
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".
