Hi Andreas, On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 12:01, Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com> wrote: > > Clément Péron: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 09:58, Andreas Rheinhardt > > <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> > >> Clément Péron: > >>> Hi Michael, Andreas, > >>> > >>> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 22:50, Andreas Rheinhardt > >>> <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Michael Niedermayer: > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:17:00PM +0200, Clément Péron wrote: > >>>>>> Output the producer reference time to a dirty raw output. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <peron.c...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> libavformat/rawenc.c | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 122 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> this breaks fate-filter-volume and others > >>>>> (Segmentation fault) > >>>>> > >>>>> I can rerun it with debug symbols and provide peoper gdb output > >>>>> but i suspect given this has "HACK" in the title you are aware of this > >>> > >>> The "HACK" tag meaning was not supposed to be: "it's ok if it > >>> segfaults", but more to trigger a discussion is it possible to > >>> properly support an output timestamp in the raw video demux, and if > >>> yes how to do it :) > >> > >> If you need a timestamp for raw video, then use a proper container and > >> not raw video. In fact, this patch basically creates new formats > >> different from all the raw formats. > > > > Yes I agree, but I do not want to add too much overhead nor > > computation processing or memory copy to my pipeline just to mux and > > demux between ffmpeg and my python script. > > > > The idea is to have a very light structure to easily pipe it. > > > > Our libraries are meant to be used by API users and are designed for > that. The ffmpeg command line tool is just one user among many and > adding code to a library to circumvent a limitation of ffmpeg (or > another user of the libraries) is not appropriate. We would end up with > a ton of hacks.
Yes I agree and maybe the final solution for this is "keep a fork of FFMpeg with your patch on your side", But my idea is could introducing a "raw-format user-defined" would be acceptable or will it be considered a hack? like we pass the pix_fmt why not passing a raw_fmt to specify the raw output format? It will default to only "packet" but a user could add other metadata if wanted. > > > I'm not familiar with audio/video container but it seems to me that > > parsing containers are not very light no? > > For certain formats the overhead of parsing containers can be negative > when compared to the raw format, because the containers provide a length > field for the packet whereas one has to search for the packet boundaries > in case of a truely raw stream. But this is not true for raw video which > is fixed size. Yes, good point, in my case I have a fixed size raw video. Thanks for your comments, Regards, Clement > > - Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > 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". _______________________________________________ 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".
