On 1/22/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2019-01-22 12:21 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >> On 1/22/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2019-01-22 12:04 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >>>> On 1/22/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> 2019-01-22 11:56 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> On 1/22/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> 2019-01-22 11:38 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>> On 1/22/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> 2019-01-22 11:28 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/19, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 2019-01-15 13:17 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/15/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2019-01-15 12:53 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/15/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2019-01-15 10:23 GMT+01:00, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/15/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A user provided a real-life caf file ending with junk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chunk, QuickTime reads such files. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please comment, Carl Eugen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NACK, there is data after junk bytes, which would get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discarded with your patch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please elaborate: I don't think any data gets discarded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this patch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I told you already, hex edit size of data chunk to very big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play file again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But how does this change the output compared to my patch? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It does change, full length of audio is: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> MD5=5128bc2cd0e7b0560f15dd4c0546d1a0rate= 0.0kbits/s speed= >>>>>>>>>>>>> 777x >>>>>>>>>>>>> size= 0kB time=00:09:18.16 bitrate= 0.0kbits/s speed= >>>>>>>>>>>>> 769x >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delay: >>>>>>>>>>>> QuickTime Player only plays the file for ~6:20. >>>>>>>>>>>> Playing the file longer would be an issue since atoms after the >>>>>>>>>>>> data atom are allowed. >>>>>>>>>>>> And most important: This is unrelated, my patch is about playing >>>>>>>>>>>> a file that is supposed to be played but currently doesn't work. >>>>>>>>>>>> If there is something else to be improved, it should be a >>>>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>>>> patch. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please comment, Carl Eugen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can not claim it fixes playback. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It does here: The file does not play without my patch, it plays >>>>>>>>> (for the right duration) with my patch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Duration is not right at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does QuickTime play the file longer for you than FFmpeg >>>>>>> with my patch? >>>>>>> Or do I misunderstand you? >>>>>> >>>>>> Correct duration is one I showed it here. >>>>> >>>>> No, the correct duration for the given file is ~6:20 as >>>>> already explained. >>>> >>>> Nope, you are removing actual valid audio samples this way. >>> >>> But the caf structure claims that the discussed data are >>> not valid audio samples but other caf atoms, since valid >>> files exist that have atoms there, it is correct to skip the >>> atoms if they cannot be detected, that is just how caf >>> works. >> >> I'm not talking about CAF structure. > > But the CAF structure is the relevant talking point for caf files, no? > >>> Is my explanation sufficient for you now? >> >> You still claim 2 things in your patch which are lie. > > So you claim I am a liar? Does that mean we can > finally drop the CoC? > > Please elaborate, Carl Eugen
You claim that: 1. There is junk data after end of data chunk as set in that file. 2. No useful data is being discarded. Both are not true. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
