On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 3:36 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2018-11-08 17:34 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > > > Then regarding the rest. Do I understand correctly that you do > > not trust dolby's specification and/or mpeg-4 ra and would only > > like identifiers be added that have been seen in the wild? > > This is not trust-related, I simply believe this patch is good > example for why patches should be tested with samples. > > Carl Eugen
So far: - 2/4 identifiers have been proven to match the darn specification regarding the sample identifier and the fact that the standard decoder initialization box is in there. I dislike Dolby as much as the other person, but this is so far a good track record and given the wording of the specification I would tend to trust it. - VLC has added these identifiers (http://git.videolan.org/?p=vlc.git;a=commit;h=dbb0f6c7353aad4cbbb14d88f9409c8419c26bcd) - Chromium has added these identifiers (https://codereview.chromium.org/2640113004/ - it goes to a separate codec on their side since they just want to pass it to the specific decoder interfaces that can handle the profiles fully instead of actually decoding them themselves). So what if I just make a patch without dvh1 that you have already implemented, and then we call that a day? Jan _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
