On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:07 PM James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/1/2020 4:54 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Am Mi., 1. Apr. 2020 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb Michael Bradshaw
> > <mjbshaw-at-google....@ffmpeg.org>:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:18 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If this patch is a good idea (if it fixes playback visually on some
> >>> devices -
> >>> do I understand that correctly?), it should not be optional imo.
> >>
> >> It won't be optional once it's standardized in ISO/IEC 14496-12. But I
> >> think it's good to have it be opt-in until it's standardized.
> >
> > If there already are devices that support it, it should not be optional.
> >
> > Carl Eugen
>
> If anything, I'd rather have these boxes (clli and mdcv) written when
> strict_std_compliance <= experimental than adding a new muxer option.
Decided to check the current state of clli, mdcv and cclv from the
MPEG documents I have accessible to myself. There is a document
regarding adding these to ISOBMFF ("Technologies under Consideration"
report from Jan. 2019 (w18240)), but the FDIS of the upcoming 14496-12
6th ed (w16163) or its already-decided amendments were elusive,
unfortunately.
If these boxes are contained within one of those FDIS documents, then
we can just make it not require non-strict compliance as effectively
the spec is just being balloted. Apparently Google defined these boxes
for their VP9 usage unofficially, but did not even register them over
at the MPEG-4 RA.
Quote from the Jan, 2019 document:
> We note that the VP9 project has already adopted, but not registered, similar
> boxes (with identical content) at
> <https://www.webmproject.org/vp9/mp4/#carriage-of-hdr-metadata>. The
> differences are (a) the four-character-codes and (b) Box vs. FullBox.
>
> There is not yet agreement to put the field semantics into the video CICP,
> and the duplication of the overall message semantics may need consideration.
That said, drafts of *MIAF* (https://www.iso.org/standard/74417.html)
specifically seem to have had it added. Yes, this is another addition
into the sphere of random ISOBMFF-likes, this time a fork of HEIF
apparently?
If we want to enable possibly-MIAF-specific things in normal MP4, then
we could enable it by default already.
Best regards,
Jan
_______________________________________________
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".
