[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Warn about PAFF & Spatial

Jeff Downs heydowns
Tue Jun 3 21:36:08 CEST 2008

On Fri, 30 May 2008, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:12:40AM -0600, Loren Merritt wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 May 2008, Jeff Downs wrote:
> > >
> > > The warning for interlaced + spatial direct was (accidentally I think)
> > > removed in r11806 when MBAFF + spatial direct was implemented.
> > > So I am for restoring it as per the patch.
> > 
> > Not accidental. I removed the warning because I was unaware of any 
> > difference between PAFF direct and MBAFF direct, and I still don't see 
> > anywhere in the standard that they differ.
> hmm, then maybe i was wrong, i assumed that there was a difference
> mainly because of various "fixmes" in h264.c and
> that your commit which implemented spatial direct + interlacing did explicitly
> mention MBAFF but not PAFF
> Either way, if spatial-direct-PAFF is supposed to work then we are back to the
> question why some files with it do not work ...

After a quick skim of the code added for interlaced direct and a couple 
reads of the spec (which means I really need to read the spec 30 more 
times to toally understand :)) it looks to me like the section dealing 
with colocated mb addresses is not equivalent for PAFF & MBAFF (table 8-8 
in spec). 
I will admit that I am not very familiar with this area of the decoder 
implementation, though, so maybe these differences are handled in there 
and I am not seeing it.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list