On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:07:23PM -0700, Timothy Gu wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2014 10:14 AM, "Christophe Gisquet"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2014-08-21 3:06 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> > > heres a narrower solution for this file
> > > not sure its better
> > > i can apply whichever you prefer,
On Aug 21, 2014 10:14 AM, "Christophe Gisquet"
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2014-08-21 3:06 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> > heres a narrower solution for this file
> > not sure its better
> > i can apply whichever you prefer, probably we wont find out which
> > is the best solution before pushing someth
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 07:14:03PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-08-21 3:06 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> > heres a narrower solution for this file
> > not sure its better
> > i can apply whichever you prefer, probably we wont find out which
> > is the best solution before pu
Hi,
2014-08-21 3:06 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> heres a narrower solution for this file
> not sure its better
> i can apply whichever you prefer, probably we wont find out which
> is the best solution before pushing something and waiting for more
> bug reports
Thanks for narrowing it done,
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 02:06:39AM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ticket #3872 is about a regression on decoding of hevc:
> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/3872
>
> The reason is a stricter validation is now performed since 5ec85c97.
>
> The sequence seems invalid to me, as it seems t
Hi,
ticket #3872 is about a regression on decoding of hevc:
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/3872
The reason is a stricter validation is now performed since 5ec85c97.
The sequence seems invalid to me, as it seems the SPS was truncated or
corrupted somewhere in the VUI. But if we ignore the a prior
