On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 10:37 PM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Nuo Mi (12024-08-25): > > Yes, I mean the v1. sorry for misleading you. > > Ah, ok. Then… maybe. > > Maybe v1 is the proper fix. Maybe the proper fix is to find where qPy_a > or qPy_b are set to 63 if they can only be <63 and fix that part of the > code. Only somebody who knows the codec can say which is the proper fix, > but it is highly unlikely any other change is. > Hi Nicolas, From the spec QpY = ( ( qPY_PRED + CuQpDeltaVal + 64 + 2 * QpBdOffset ) % ( 64 + QpBdOffset ) ) - QpBdOffset So qPY_A and qPY_B <= 63. Not < 63. Frank's patch will fix the assert. qPY_A and qPY_B calculations have no obvious issues. We read qPY_A and qPY_B from a table. We add an assertion here to ensure the table hasn't been polluted. Thank you > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas George > _______________________________________________ > 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".
