Am 20.02.20 um 04:24 schrieb James Almer:
> On 2/19/2020 11:24 PM, Jeyapal, Karthick wrote:
>>
>> On 2/20/20 7:19 AM, James Almer wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2020 9:33 PM, Jeyapal, Karthick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/19/20 7:05 PM, James Almer wrote:
>>>>> On 2/19/2020 8:50 AM, Jeyapal, Karthick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/19/20 4:21 PM, Thilo Borgmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 19.02.20 um 06:18 schrieb Jeyapal, Karthick:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/20 9:43 PM, James Almer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> libavformat/dashenc.c | 5 +++++
>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavformat/dashenc.c b/libavformat/dashenc.c
>>>>>>>>> index b910cc22d0..045d2f4df6 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/libavformat/dashenc.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/libavformat/dashenc.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1395,6 +1395,11 @@ static int dash_init(AVFormatContext *s)
>>>>>>>>> c->frag_type = FRAG_TYPE_EVERY_FRAME;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + if (c->ldash && !c->write_prft) {
>>>>>>>>> + av_log(s, AV_LOG_INFO, "Enabling Producer Reference Time
>>>>>>>>> element for Low Latency mode\n");
>>>>>>>>> + c->write_prft = 1;
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> PRFT elements has a significant bitrate overhead, especially in
>>>>>>>> streaming mode when each frame is a moof fragment.
>>>>>>>> In terms of percentage of stream's bitrate this overhead will be a
>>>>>>>> significant % for lower bitrate streams(such as audio streams).
>>>>>>>> For any application which does not need PRFT this is an unnecessary
>>>>>>>> wastage of bits.
>>>>>>>> Hence, I would advise against enabling PRFT without user control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latest to-become spec for low latency mode declares it mandatory [1].
>>>>>> I see. Now I understand the motive behind this change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see your point, though. What significance would this actually have,
>>>>>>> can you provide some numbers / examples?
>>>>>> Sorry. I worked on this bitrate overhead optimizations around a year
>>>>>> back. Hence, I don’t have the numbers with and without PRFT handy.
>>>>>> But I do have the final overhead numbers (without PRFT) for an audio
>>>>>> stream.
>>>>>> CMAF Muxer overhead (for an AAC-LC codec) by Sampling frequency
>>>>>> 16000 Hz - 14 Kbps
>>>>>> 24000 Hz - 20 Kbps
>>>>>> 32000 Hz - 28 Kbps
>>>>>> 48000 Hz - 40 Kbps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 48KHz, the overhead due to CMAF was 40 Kbps which was significant by
>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>> My random guess is that PRFT would add another 10Kbps - 20Kbps. But I
>>>>>> could be wrong here, as I don’t remember exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> prft is a 32 byte box per dash segment, and segment duration can be
>>>>> configured. A 1 second long segment for a 96kbps 44kHz audio stream with
>>>>> a single moof/mdat pair inside is about 12kb. 32 bytes aren't going to
>>>>> affect it.
>>>> Thanks for your clarification. If the prft is created only once per
>>>> segment, then it is not a big overhead.
>>>> I had encountered a case where pfrt was getting created once per fragment,
>>>> and hence was worried.
>>>
>>> Actually, you're right, it's one per fragment. My mistake. But you can
>>> control both fragment count per segment and frame count per fragment in
>>> the dash muxer now, and for low latency dash one fragment per segment of
>>> about 1 second each is recommended for audio streams.
>> If that is the case, I would like to point out that not everybody might
>> choose 1 second per fragment.
>> Anyone interested in reduced latency and stability would go for 1 frame per
>> fragment.
>> In our tests(in production environments), 1 frame per fragment provides much
>> smoother and stable behavior at low latency streaming than higher fragment
>> sizes.
>> And in such a case PRFT will add 12Kbps overhead for a 48Khz AAC-LC stream.
>> Hence, I suggest we keep this behavior configurable.
>
> One audio frame per fragment is a considerable overhead by itself just
> by the excess of moof atoms.
> But in any case, i guess i can skip this
> patch for the time being, while i look for a good way to for example
> configure prft in a per adaptation set basis, or just enable it for
> video streams.
I don't think so. We should not fail the spec on default because of one
possible use case.
Since we seem to have found that this can be a significant overhead, we should
add an override option to violate the spec (and skip prft) - but in that case
also print a warning.
-Thilo
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The real overhead is in the CMAF fragmentation/segmentation. Each moof
>>>>> box can be in the hundreds of bytes depending on frame count. The more
>>>>> moof/mdat pairs (AKA CMAF Chunks) are used, the bigger the overhead.
>>>>> Before my recent changes the dash muxer would always make one per frame
>>>>> in streaming mode, which was excessive, especially for audio. But now
>>>>> you can customize it in various ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that turns out to be actually significant, I don't know if we would
>>>>>>> prefer an override option to disable it and produce non-conformant
>>>>>>> manifests or live with the overhead.
>>>>>> Yes. Having an option to control this behavior would be useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Thilo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://dashif.org/docs/DASH-IF-IOP-CR-Low-Latency-Live-Community-Review-Dec-2019.pdf
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
