On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
Hey guys,On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote: On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, Tomas Härdin wrote:fre 2020-02-28 klockan 10:30 +0100 skrev Marton Balint:On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am Fr., 28. Feb. 2020 um 01:38 Uhr schrieb Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu>: > > Fixes ticket #8523. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> > > --- > > libavformat/mxf.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/libavformat/mxf.c b/libavformat/mxf.c > > index 14056647c5..987410258a 100644 > > --- a/libavformat/mxf.c > > +++ b/libavformat/mxf.c > > @@ -135,10 +135,23 @@ static const MXFContentPackageRate mxf_content_package_rates[] = { > > { 2, { 1, 24 } }, > > { 3, { 1001, 24000 } }, > > { 4, { 1, 25 } }, > > + { 6, { 1, 30 } }, > > { 7, { 1001, 30000 } }, > > + { 8, { 1 , 48 } }, > > + { 9, { 1001, 48000 } }, > > { 10, { 1, 50 } }, > > { 12, { 1, 60 } }, > > { 13, { 1001, 60000 } }, > > + { 14, { 1, 72 } }, > > + { 15, { 1001, 72000 } }, > > + { 16, { 1, 75 } }, > > + { 18, { 1, 90 } }, > > + { 19, { 1001, 90000 } }, > > + { 20, { 1, 96 } }, > > + { 21, { 1001, 96000 } }, > > + { 22, { 1, 100 } }, > > + { 24, { 1, 120 } }, > > + { 25, { 1001, 120000} }, > > Are these still the only supported frame rates? These are the *package* rates that SMPTE 326M defines (technically it defines the /1.001 version of 25, 50, 75 and 100 fps, but those are not used).For the record, this is section 7.2 Content package rate in SMPTE 326M- 2000. What is not initially obvious is that mxf_content_package_rates-rate is bits b5..b0. A comment about this would be nice, I don't likemagical tables in the MXF codebase not being justified by references :) You could technically have 25/1.001, 50/1.001, 75/1.001 and 100/1.001 too. But it's probably wise not to do that.I am not sure, maybe we should add all possible values, even if they are uncommon. After all I found out that for example 50/1.001 is actually supported for mkvmerge:It seems like if we were to do that, we would open the door to allowing essences that don’t support the package rate and we should definitely NOT do that.
I am not sure I understand, there are two different things to consider:1) support every frame rate which can be exactly represented by a package rate as defined in SMPTE 326M, even uncommon ones like 50/1.001.
2) support all frame rates and write 0 (undefined) as the package rate for frame rates which cannot be exactly represented
You are voting against 2), right? 1) should not cause any "compatibility" issues as far as I see.
Thanks, Marton _______________________________________________ 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".
