On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 05:16:09PM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote: > lance.lmw...@gmail.com: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 03:04:32PM +0100, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote: > >> lance.lmw...@gmail.com: > >>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 09:58:31PM +0800, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> From: Limin Wang <lance.lmw...@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> Fix below error message when timecode packet is written. > >>>> "Application provided duration: -9223372036854775808 / timestamp: > >>>> -9223372036854775808 is out of range for mov/mp4 format" > >>>> > >>>> try to reproduce by: > >>>> ffmpeg -y -f lavfi -i color -metadata "timecode=00:00:00:00" -t 1 > >>>> test.mov > >>>> > >>>> Note although error message is printed, the timecode packet will be > >>>> written anyway. So > >>>> the patch 2/2 will try to change the log level to warning. > >>>> > >>>> The first two test case of fate-lavf-ismv have timecode setting, so the > >>>> crc of ref data is different. > >>>> Fixes ticket #9488 > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Limin Wang <lance.lmw...@gmail.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> libavformat/movenc.c | 2 ++ > >>>> tests/ref/lavf/ismv | 4 ++-- > >>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/libavformat/movenc.c b/libavformat/movenc.c > >>>> index 4c86891..74b94cd 100644 > >>>> --- a/libavformat/movenc.c > >>>> +++ b/libavformat/movenc.c > >>>> @@ -6383,6 +6383,8 @@ static int > >>>> mov_create_timecode_track(AVFormatContext *s, int index, int src_inde > >>>> pkt->data = data; > >>>> pkt->stream_index = index; > >>>> pkt->flags = AV_PKT_FLAG_KEY; > >>>> + pkt->pts = pkt->dts = av_rescale_q(tc.start, av_inv_q(rate), > >>>> (AVRational){1,mov->movie_timescale}); > >>>> + pkt->duration = av_rescale_q(1, av_inv_q(rate), > >>>> (AVRational){1,mov->movie_timescale}); > >>>> pkt->size = 4; > >>>> AV_WB32(pkt->data, tc.start); > >>>> ret = ff_mov_write_packet(s, pkt); > >>>> diff --git a/tests/ref/lavf/ismv b/tests/ref/lavf/ismv > >>>> index ac7f72b..723b432 100644 > >>>> --- a/tests/ref/lavf/ismv > >>>> +++ b/tests/ref/lavf/ismv > >>>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > >>>> -48fb8d7a5d19bd60f3a49ccf4b7d6593 *tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv > >>>> +7a24b73c096ec0f13f0f7a2d9101c4c1 *tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv > >>>> 313169 tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv > >>>> tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv CRC=0x9d9a638a > >>>> -d19cd8e310a2e94fe0a0d11c5dc29217 *tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv > >>>> +79646383fd099d45ad0d0c2791c601dd *tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv > >>>> 322075 tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv > >>>> tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv CRC=0xe8130120 > >>>> 3b6023766845b51b075aed474c00f73c *tests/data/lavf/lavf.ismv > >>>> -- > >>>> 1.8.3.1 > >>>> > >>> > >>> will apply the patch set tomorrow unless there are any objections. > >>> > >> > >> You have not really answered whether the current files or the new files > >> are spec-incompliant; you have just reported that one byte is different. > > > > Sorry, I think I have said both current and new file is spec-compliant in > > the last > > email. > > > > You stated that you think that both files are valid, but you also said > that you don't even know what this byte that is different actually means. > > > By Quicktime file format specs: > > Section Timecode Sample Description, all tmcd field isn't used pts/dts. > > > > As for where is the different for one byte, it's caused by pkt->duration. > > The > > old is 0(uninitialized), after the patch it's 33(1 frame duration). > > > > The text about Timecode Sample Description reads as follows: "Frame > duration: A 32-bit integer that indicates how long each frame lasts in > real time." This implies that only one of the two files can be > spec-compliant. I am not a mov/ISOBMFF expert, but it seems to me that > the current way of doing things is wrong. But I wonder about whether > your patch is correct for vfr content. Doesn't the property of being vfr > need to be reflected in the timecodes somehow (with different durations > for different packets)?
Andreas, I have updated the patch and remove the fate difference which is caused by duration, do you have any other comments for v2 patch? > > - Andreas > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". -- Thanks, Limin Wang _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".