[FFmpeg-user] Storing scan-type/interlaced in MXF?

[Peter B.]

On 31/10/18 15:43, Tobias Rapp wrote:
> Maybe try to double-check the generated MXF file using MediaInfo or
> MxfDump. As far as I know field order is derived from the generic
> picture essence descriptor in MXF.

Thanks for the tip, but I've already tried with Mediainfo before posting
here:
"Scan type : Progressive"
:(

Found a thread in Adobe forums (2016), that Premiere seems to allow only
progressive JPEG2000 export too, btw:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2196883


@Tobias:
Took a quick look at your patch :)

However, I found a related post from Carl Fleischhauer (FADGI/LoC
2016-08-23):
https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2016/07/fadgi-mxf-video-specification-moves-up-an-industry-organization-approval-ladder/


[quote]
In the years following the 2006 publication, two or three vendors
developed systems unrelated to digital cinema that wrapped interlaced
video as JPEG 2000. Alas, since the recipe in the standard did not spell
things out clearly, these vendors’ wrappings differed, and the resulting
files were not interoperable.

In 2012, as we were developing AS-07, we joined a number of others who
sought improvements in the specification for interlaced video as JPEG
2000 in MXF.

The relevant SMPTE standards committee made a revision, published in
2014. Members of the committee–and this is perfectly normal–included
stakeholders from companies that had already invested in one or another
wrapping method. Thus the final 2014 version of ST 422 features three
options for interlaced wrapping (and two for progressive):
• “I1” Interlaced Frame Wrapping, 1 field per KLV Element (details
spelled out in section 5.4 in the standard)
• “I2” Interlaced Frame Wrapping, 2 fields per KLV Element (spelled out
in 5.5)
• “F1” Field Wrapping, 1 field per KLV Element (spelled out in 5.6)
[quote]


Sorry for bugging anyone with J2K/MXF, but now I'm curious:
Is any of these 3 methods (currently) possible with ffmpeg?
:D


Nice greetings, and sorry again ;)
Peter