[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] MOV muxer : Add SoundDescriptionV2 support

[Jai Menon]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 04:17:00AM -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 11/28/09 4:07 AM, Jai Menon wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 02:00:39AM -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >>On 11/28/09 1:21 AM, Jai Menon wrote:
> >>>On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>On 11/27/09 11:41 PM, Jai Menon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>>>sounddescv2.patch
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>diff --git a/libavformat/movenc.c b/libavformat/movenc.c
> >>>>>index ac6378c..36b156e 100644
> >>>>>--- a/libavformat/movenc.c
> >>>>>+++ b/libavformat/movenc.c
> >>>>>@@ -405,13 +405,21 @@ static int mov_write_glbl_tag(ByteIOContext *pb, MOVTrack *track)
> >>>>>  static int mov_write_audio_tag(ByteIOContext *pb, MOVTrack *track)
> >>>>>  {
> >>>>>      int64_t pos = url_ftell(pb);
> >>>>>-    int version = track->mode == MODE_MOV&&
> >>>>>+    int version;
> >>>>>+
> >>>>>+    if (track->mode == MODE_MOV&&
> >>>>>          (track->audio_vbr ||
> >>>>>           track->enc->codec_id == CODEC_ID_PCM_S32LE ||
> >>>>>-         track->enc->codec_id == CODEC_ID_PCM_S24LE);
> >>>>>+         track->enc->codec_id == CODEC_ID_PCM_S24LE)) {
> >>>>>+        if (track->timescale>    UINT16_MAX)
> >>>>>+            version = 2;
> >>>>
> >>>>The stsd v2 must always be used when timescale>   UINT16_MAX
> >>>>regardless of codec.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, I agree, but right now I just dont have the time required to make
> >>>samples, remux and test against quicktime. Maybe someone who requires
> >>>this for other codecs can add it later?
> >>
> >>Well, by experience, half-baked solutions for specific codecs rot
> >>forever in the codebase, so I would prefer avoiding it.
> >
> >I don't think this is that big of a problem. The patch itself would be
> >trivial since it requires setting version outside of the current if
> >block ->  ~2 line diff (unless I'm missing something). The issue as I
> >mentioned earlier is that I don't have a QT pro license so I dont
> >have the freedom to generate and test against a multitude of samples.
> >Also, there is the lack of time ;) I'm sure someone who cares about
> >other codecs will want to test it and maybe send a patch. But IMHO
> >that shouldn't get in the way of patches which improve the over all
> >situation.
> 
> Well, I'm glad you say it's trivial so it should be easy for you to
> implement it.
> 
> In the mean time I will add a test against sample rate and just fail.

Fair enough.

[...]

-- 
Jai Menon