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

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

2018-12-18 19:16 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com>:
> 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.

The e-mail in which you requested confirmation (which one was
it?) may have been so long and contained so many points that
I got distracted and didn't realize I had to comment, possibly
because I considered my request so simple.

Carl Eugen