On 3/9/2018 12:04 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 3/9/18, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/9/2018 7:05 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>> On 3/9/18, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/9/18, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 09:15:13 +0100 >>>>> Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/9/18, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:53:48 -0300 >>>>>>> James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2018 9:50 PM, Hazem Ashmawy wrote: >>>>>>>>> [PATCH] avfilter: add panorama filter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry about that! I removed them now. >>>>>>>>> For the future, any recommendation for a tool for linting / >>>>>>>>> checking >>>>>>>>> formating >>>>>>>>> rules? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's tools/patcheck. Feed it a git format-patch style of patch to >>>>>>>> find common issues, but keep in mind it can generate a lot of false >>>>>>>> positives. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know if we have documentation about actual formatting rules >>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <_jamrial> shouldn't that panorama filter sent to the ml use the >>>>>>> spherical >>>>>>> frame side data? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there actual files that have such data? >>>>> >>>>> Is that a trick question? I only know the non-standard, Google specific >>>>> metadata in mkv and mp4 that lavf can read (was any of this >>>>> standardized yet?). >>>>> >>>>> But that doesn't change that we can tag AVFrames with this info, and >>>>> for files which don't have the metadata, it makes sense to me to set it >>>>> with a new vf_format argument or some sort of vf_setinfo (if we don't >>>>> have anything like this yet). >>>>> >>>>> The part that is annoying is that vf_panorama still seems to require >>>>> setting an output projection, which would make the whole thing more >>>>> annoying instead of less, but even then I'd argue it should default to >>>>> taking the AVFrame configuration (AV_FRAME_DATA_SPHERICAL) as input by >>>>> default, even if the filter arguments can override it. >>>> >>>> That frame side data is very specific and thus considered barely useful >>>> here. >>>> >>>> Is it at all updated to the latest improvements, like new equi-angular >>>> cubemap projection? >>>> >>> >>> I guess not at all, I get this: >>> >>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x21c1740] Unknown projection type >> >> Sample? Also, where is this new projection defined? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLExhpXX0E > > It is defined by Google?
Vittorio and I used https://github.com/google/spatial-media/blob/master/docs/spherical-video-v2-rfc.md to write the current Matroska and mov implementations, and by extension the AVSphericalMapping API. Specifically the Equirectangular and Cubemap projections. This sample seems to have a "ytmp" projection box, but it's not defined in the above document. I guess the name hints at it being a very early an internal draft? We can't really do much without a spec... In any case, I insist much like wm4 that a filter like this should use the metadata stored in the AVFrame if available. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
