-----Original Message-----
From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of James
Almer
Sent: środa, 10 maja 2023 22:21
To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v22 02/10] avcodec/evc_parser: Added
parser implementation for EVC format
On 4/27/2023 9:02 AM, Dawid Kozinski wrote:
- Added constants definitions for EVC parser
- Provided NAL units parsing following ISO_IEC_23094-1
- EVC parser registration
Signed-off-by: Dawid Kozinski <d.kozin...@samsung.com>
---
libavcodec/Makefile | 1 +
libavcodec/evc.h | 155 ++++
libavcodec/evc_parser.c | 1497
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
libavcodec/parsers.c | 1 +
4 files changed, 1654 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 libavcodec/evc.h
create mode 100644 libavcodec/evc_parser.c
There seems to have been a regression in this version compared to v20.
Try to compile with the libxevd decoder disabled and open a raw file (not
mp4).
Whereas with v20 i was getting
Input #0, evc, from 'akiyo_cif.evc':
Duration: N/A, bitrate: N/A
Stream #0:0: Video: evc (Baseline), none, 352x288, 25 fps, 25 tbr,
1200k tbn
I'm now getting
Input #0, evc, from 'akiyo_cif.evc':
Duration: N/A, bitrate: N/A
Stream #0:0: Video: evc (Baseline), none, 555902582x0, 25 fps, 25
tbr, 1200k tbn
It seems that the problem showed up because you moved the parameter sets
to
stack to skip allocating them, and you no longer check if they exist or
were
parsed by looking at slice_pic_parameter_set_id and such.
That aside, i looked at the EVC spec and noticed that the "raw" format in
Annex-
B is unlike that of H.26{4,5,6}: There's no start code, and instead
there's a NAL
size prefix, which sounds like the isobmff way of encapsulating NALUs.
I also noticed that the syntax for nal_unit() contains an
emulation_prevention_three_byte element, but there's no explanation for it
in
the semantics section. Its existence in H.26* is to prevent parsers from
misinterpreting a sequence of two or more zeroes as a potential start
code, but
that's clearly not the case here, so why is it defined and present at all?
What this means is that the parser can't be made to assemble an AU. If you
feed
it data starting from the middle of a NAL, it will not be able to sync to
the start
of the next NAL because all it looks for is a four byte size value and
will accept
the very first four bytes its fed as one.
Since i doubt the spec can be changed at this point to amend this
oversight, the
AU assembling will have to occur in the evc demuxer, much like we do with
AV1
(both raw obu and Annex-B formats as defined in the corresponding spec),
and
the parser be limited to parse fully assembled NALs with
parse_nal_units().
According to your last EVC review:
We have re-implemented the EVC demuxer to assemble Access Units (AUs) and
pass them further, while the EVC parser is limited to parsing complete NAL
units provided in consecutive AUs.
However, before we create a new patchset, we would like to discuss some
things because we believe this solution is not optimal.
According to the EVC documentation, "Each access unit contains a set of VCL
NAL units that together compose a primary coded picture."
This means that to find the boundaries of an AU, we need to identify all the
NAL units that contain data for a single encoded picture.
In our case, to determine whether the next VCL NAL unit contains data for
the same picture as the previous VCL NAL unit or for a different encoded
picture, we need information contained in the NAL units. We need to extract
certain data from NAL units like SPS and PPS, as well as from the Slice
Headers of VCL NAL units.
In other words, this implies that parsing NAL units is required for this
purpose.
It may not be as extensive parsing as in the EVC parser, but still, there is
a significant amount of parsing involved, which adds some overhead.
Another question is whether the demuxer is the appropriate place for parsing
NAL units? I guess it's not.
Perhaps it would be better if the demuxer prepared complete NAL units
instead of complete AUs. The EVC parser would then receive complete NAL
units, and since it already parses them, we have the necessary information
for preparing complete AUs at no extra cost.
Preparing complete NAL units is definitely simpler than preparing complete
AUs. It only requires finding the length of the NAL unit and putting that
amount of data from the input into the AVPacket.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
