Quoting Leo Izen (2023-12-15 00:33:33) > On 12/14/23 03:28, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > This logic seems shady to me. > > Which part, specifically? The animated logic, or the non-animated logic?
Aspects of both looked questionable to me (which doesn't necessarily means it's wrong) > > The decoder should mess with pts as little > > as possible and whenever it can just copy the packet value to the frame. > > Any codec-level timestamps should not be trusted. > > In the case of animated JXL, codec-level timestamps are all that's > available because the only demuxer is jpegxl_anim, which doesn't > packetize the individual frames. That may change in the future. And you shouldn't assume the caller is necessarily using lavf for demuxing, if you can help it. > > > > Now this does not work when a single packet decodes into multiple > > frames, then you have to add increments of frame duration to the > > original packet pts. But you should still preserve the original value as > > the base - it might not start at 0. > > I see what you're saying, but in the case where one packet decodes into > multiple frames in the non-animated stream, we don't have any way to > properly differentiate the PTS of those frames. When does that happen? And sure, I accept that when there's no other option you might have to take some liberties. I'm just saying it should be done as little as possible. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ 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".
