[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2 v3] lavf/isom: add Dolby Vision sample entry codes for HEVC and H.264

[Jan Ekström]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:21 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2018-12-18 18:17 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:17 PM Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 2018-12-17 7:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
> >> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 03:02 Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> 2018-12-17 1:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> > >> > So as far as it's been possible to test this, that's been done
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Could you point me to a dva1 sample?
> >> > >
> >> > > I have not seen any dolby vision samples with avc in the wild.
> >> > > You can ask Vittorio if he has some as he noted about
> >> > > possibly being able to ask for some before.
> >> >
> >> > The patch is of course ok if Vittorio tested it with his samples.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you, Carl Eugen
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I have no idea what samples Vittorio does or does not
> >> possess, he has only mentioned off-hand that he might able to get hold
> >> of some if required. And since you were the one requiring them, I
> >> pointed you towards him.
> >>
> >> For myself, I am happy with the following points regarding this:
> >> 1. The identifiers are registered at the MPEG-4 RA.
> >> 2. There is a proper specification for these mappings that is
> >> seemingly kept up-to-date.
> >> 3. The mappings specification specifically notes that the only
> >> difference between the AVC and HEVC identifiers are the semantics
> >> mentioned in ISO/IEC 14496-15. We already have all of the identifiers
> >> specified which these mappings are based upon, so those semantics
> >> should not matter to us (and if they do, we have already broken those
> >> constraints at this point).
> >> 4. The mapping specification specifically notes that the given AVC and
> >> HEVC identifiers must also include the standard avcC and hvcC boxes so
> >> that they can be decoded normally without any additional custom code.
> >> 5. We have samples for at least one of the four identifiers that
> >> matches points 1 to 4.
> >> 6. Android, Chromium, VLC among others have already implemented these
> >> identifiers in the same way.
> >>
> >> Now, if you are not happy with these points, then please clearly state
> >> that you are blocking any and all additional identifier additions - no
> >> matter how specified - as long as there are no samples on hand for
> >> them.
> >
> > After taking a second look at this sentence, I find this wording being
> > loaded and antagonizing. It was unprofessional, and I apologize for
> > it.
> >
> > But the wish underneath was to get a clear view into what it was it
> > that you wanted. That was what was mostly clouded for me in your
> > replies, and that annoyed me to no end.
> >
> > While I must say that I would have been happy if you had told me you
> > were not blocking the patch (set), I did not want a specific outcome
> > out of this sentence. I just wanted you to voice your level of
> > discomfort with the patch (set) and to voice your current wishes
> > regarding it. I had set my wishes on the table with the six points,
> > and why I believed the patch (set) was fine as it was.
> >
> > That is why after I wrote this post I asked Michael what it was that
> > was the procedure for cases where developers have seemingly
> > irreconcilable differences in opinions regarding a patch set. I did
> > not know if that was the case, but the main point was that in the
> > unfortunate case that the patch was blocked, and we did not agree on
> > some points heavily enough that we could not co-operate, that the next
> > step could be taken right away so as to not have the patch (set) sit
> > there untouched for another week or two.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you did not respond to or touch this sentence at all,
> > which I then interpreted as your comments not being blockers.
>
> > I hope this makes my intentions and annoyances clear.
>
> Afaict, it contradicts what you wrote on irc yesterday.
>
> > I hope that in
> > the future we can continue to co-operate, and that this makes it clear
> > that I do not have any personal grievances nor a vendetta against you.
>
> Carl Eugen

Feel free to quote the parts that you think contradict.

Jan