On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:57:36PM +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I think they're same value by specs, I'll delete the assignment for PRO_*
to make it be cleaner.
>
> > 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
OK, will add the following message into commit message:
d3a7bdd4ac54349aea9150a234478635d50ebd87 was based on incorrect conclusions
because we had missed to set uiProfileIdc.
>
> // Martin
>
--
Thanks,
Limin Wang
_______________________________________________
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".
