[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat: add H264 and HEVC support in IVF muxer

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:24:22AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 10/14/2018 9:59 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 01:29:53PM +0300, Jan Ekström wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 1:27 PM Jan Ekström <jeebjp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 3:17 AM Michael Niedermayer
> >>> <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:13:45AM +0100, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/10/2018 23:39, Alex Sukhanov wrote:
> >>>>>> The only "spec" I'm aware of:https://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php/IVF
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, not really a spec.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have no strong objections, I guess.
> >>>>
> >>>> so IIUC noone is against this ?
> >>>> if so i will apply the last patch in a few days unless i forget or
> >>>> someone else does before
> >>>>
> >>>> thx
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> As mentioned, since this is nothing should have ever been used outside
> >>> of one of GOOG's legacy systems, I would only apply this with a
> >>> warning and strictness requirement of experimental or whatever level
> >>> matches these sorts of cases.
> >>>
> >>
> >> For the record, this was regarding the muxer so that unknowing people
> >> will not generate such files that nothing else can read.
> > 
> > If you choose a random container and store a random codec in it (which you can do)
> > chances are theres not much that will play it.
> > 
> > for example i just tried muxing a stream of png images into mpeg and FFmpeg
> > does that without complaining.
> > ./ffmpeg -i matrixbench_mpeg2.mpg -vcodec png test.mpeg
> > 
> > So if we do not check this for a major format that has a proper specification
> > which i belive nowhere allows png
> > 
> > Why should we add a limitation on a format that has nothing saying that you
> > cannot put some other codec into it ?
> 
> The proper thing to do would be to effectively disallow such invalid
> muxing scenarios, fixing this instead of adding even more wrong cases to
> the pile.
> I'm fairly sure we blocked a patch to allow muxing hevc into flv years
> ago. That's what needs to be done in general.

I think where we disagree is not that "we should disallow invalid muxing"
but if this is invalid/wrong. And also it seems to me that people appear to
be very quick in jumping onto such "lets block it" movments without doing 
much research

about new codecs in IVF, which this thread is about, why is that invalid ?

our ivf demuxer refers to itself as "On2 IVF" so i presume the format was 
created by On2
(googling for On2 IVF results in only strange results interrestingly)
but presumably IVF was created by On2
In February 2010, On2 Technologies was acquired by Google (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On2_Technologies)

And google is using IVF apparently from what was said in this thread with more
codecs. Well from how i understand it (please correct me if iam wrong)
IVF is now a format "owned" by google. They certainly can add things to
it. Theres nothing wrong or invalid on this.

Thanks

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Those who are best at talking, realize last or never when they are wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20181015/552f5240/attachment.sig>