2018-12-17 22:18 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:11 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> 2018-12-17 22:02 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:57 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> 2018-12-17 21:52 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:49 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> > <ceffm...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 2018-12-17 21:30 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:23 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> > <ceffm...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2018-12-17 21:17 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >> > <ceffm...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2018-12-17 7:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 03:02 Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >> >> > <ceffm...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 2018-12-17 1:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So as far as it's been possible to test this, that's been >> >> >> >> >> >> > done >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Could you point me to a dva1 sample? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > I have not seen any dolby vision samples with avc in the >> >> >> >> >> > wild. >> >> >> >> >> > You can ask Vittorio if he has some as he noted about >> >> >> >> >> > possibly being able to ask for some before. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The patch is of course ok if Vittorio tested it with his >> >> >> >> >> samples. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, Carl Eugen >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Unfortunately I have no idea what samples Vittorio does or does >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> > possess, he has only mentioned off-hand that he might able to >> >> >> >> > get >> >> >> >> > hold >> >> >> >> > of some if required. And since you were the one requiring them, >> >> >> >> > I >> >> >> >> > pointed you towards him. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > For myself, I am happy with the following points regarding >> >> >> >> > this: >> >> >> >> > 1. The identifiers are registered at the MPEG-4 RA. >> >> >> >> > 2. There is a proper specification for these mappings that is >> >> >> >> > seemingly kept up-to-date. >> >> >> >> > 3. The mappings specification specifically notes that the only >> >> >> >> > difference between the AVC and HEVC identifiers are the >> >> >> >> > semantics >> >> >> >> > mentioned in ISO/IEC 14496-15. We already have all of the >> >> >> >> > identifiers >> >> >> >> > specified which these mappings are based upon, so those >> >> >> >> > semantics >> >> >> >> > should not matter to us (and if they do, we have already broken >> >> >> >> > those >> >> >> >> > constraints at this point). >> >> >> >> > 4. The mapping specification specifically notes that the given >> >> >> >> > AVC >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > HEVC identifiers must also include the standard avcC and hvcC >> >> >> >> > boxes >> >> >> >> > so >> >> >> >> > that they can be decoded normally without any additional custom >> >> >> >> > code. >> >> >> >> > 5. We have samples for at least one of the four identifiers >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > matches points 1 to 4. >> >> >> >> > 6. Android, Chromium, VLC among others have already implemented >> >> >> >> > these >> >> >> >> > identifiers in the same way. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Now, if you are not happy with these points, then please >> >> >> >> > clearly >> >> >> >> > state >> >> >> >> > that you are blocking any and all additional identifier >> >> >> >> > additions >> >> >> >> > - >> >> >> >> > no >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > matter how specified - as long as there are no samples on hand >> >> >> >> > for >> >> >> >> > them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I thought we had samples? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anyway, please mention ticket #7347. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The sample last linked in that ticket was supposedly MPEG-TS for >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > other HEVC identifier, not ISOBMFF. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you think so? Which sample did you test? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > From #7347 >> >> >> Dobly Vision transport stream with codec tag "dvhe" can be found >> >> >> under: >> >> >> http://4kmedia.org/tag/dolby-vision/ >> >> > >> >> > The site also notes that it's supposed to be a transport stream. I >> >> > did >> >> > not look further. >> >> >> >> Then please allow me to once again suggest testing (at least if >> >> you trust neither me nor Igor). >> >> > That was a quote FROM Igor's post >> > (https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7347#comment:12). If he and the site >> > mentioned it wrong then please just note that. >> >> Which reminds me that you could mention him too in >> the commit message: >> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/10023/ >> >> Carl Eugen > > I did not see that patch when taking the initial single-identifier
I know (actually: I assumed so) and wrote that in my first comment. > patch from Rodger, and even compared to Rodger's original patch me > adding the other identifiers and adding the MPEG-4 RA identifier > description comments and proper commit message at that point keep very > little of what was there to begin with. > > Unless there is something substantial, I would rather just get done > with this pain that is trying to get a seemingly darn simple patch > through review. At this point I hate humans, I hate communication. > This is not fun. If you got any enjoyment of this, I am very happy for > you. Sadly not, on the contrary. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
