[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat/mxfenc: add h264_mp4toannexb bitstream filter if needed when muxing h264

[Tomas Härdin]

lör 2024-02-24 klockan 15:13 +0100 skrev Andreas Rheinhardt:
> Tomas Härdin:
> > > > > +static int mxf_check_bitstream(AVFormatContext *s, AVStream
> > > > > *st,
> > > > > const AVPacket *pkt)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +    if (st->codecpar->codec_id == AV_CODEC_ID_H264) {
> > > > > +        if (pkt->size >= 5 && AV_RB32(pkt->data) !=
> > > > > 0x0000001 &&
> > > > > +                              AV_RB24(pkt->data) !=
> > > > > 0x000001)
> > > > > +            return ff_stream_add_bitstream_filter(st,
> > > > > "h264_mp4toannexb", NULL);
> > 
> > Regardless of the comments below, this is wrong. ST 381-3 says
> > this:
> > 
> > > The byte stream format can be constructed from the NAL unit
> > > stream by
> > > prefixing each NAL unit with a start
> > > code prefix and zero or more zero-valued bytes to form a stream
> > > of
> > > bytes.
> > 
> > Note the wording is "zero or more", not "zero or one".
> 
> IMO all the code should only look at extradata to decide whether a
> stream is annex B or ISOBMFF (no extradata->annex B, no ISOBMFF
> extradata->annex B, else ISOBMFF). But that is a separate issue.
> (There is a slight possibility of misdetection here: E.g. a 0x00 00
> 01
> at the start of a packet can actually be the start of the length code
> of
> an ISOBMFF NALU with length in the range 256-511; on the other hand,
> it
> is legal for an annex B packet to start with four or more zero bytes,
> as
> you mentioned.)
> 
> > The correct way to do this is to inspect byte 14 of the EC UL, per
> > section 8.1 of ST 381-3.
> 
> This is a patch for the muxer, not the demuxer.

D'oh! Then it's an entirely different thing of course. Then the onus
falls on lavf internals to behave correctly.

> There is no byte 14 of
> the EC UL to inspect; or at least: It is what this muxer writes for
> it.
> This muxer always indicates that the output is an annex B (aka AVC
> byte
> stream), so it should always convert the input from the user to
> actually
> be annex B.

We could do that, or we could write an appropriate UL. Either is fine I
suppose.

/Tomas