[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 8:05 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2018-12-18 18:38 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:30 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2018-12-18 18:24 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> I was under the assumption you had read this:
> >> [21:26:03 CET] <durandal_1707> carl just officially approved your
> >> patch with single condition to mention ticket #7347
> >>
> >> But re-reading it, there was no indication you actually understood
> >> what Paul wrote (or even read it), so sorry if I was wrong.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that specific line I had no interest in. I was tired, and the
> > ticket was not in my opinion getting fixed with this, as only after we
> > got the Dolby Vision profile 5 color space reverse engineered would we
> > actually have these clips properly playing (outside of hardware
> > decoding paths specifically meant for Dolby Vision). I had commented
> > in a way on the mailing list thread towards that e-mail that I thought
> > made it clear that I would not be adding the ticket identifier
>
> > (esp. not at the eleventh hour, which it really did feel like to me at that
> > point).
>
> No, November 6th is not the eleventh hour.
>

Emphasis on the the "did feel like <IT> to me at that point" part of
the sentence. Also I would have really preferred it if you could have
put all these points into the discussion when I requested confirmation
on whether you were blocking the patch (set) or not, as I already
noted in my previous e-mail.

Jan