On 3/9/18, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/9/2018 12:12 PM, James Almer wrote: >> On 3/9/2018 12:04 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>> On 3/9/18, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/9/2018 7:05 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>>>> On 3/9/18, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/9/18, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 09:15:13 +0100 >>>>>>> Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/9/18, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:53:48 -0300 >>>>>>>>> James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2018 9:50 PM, Hazem Ashmawy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH] avfilter: add panorama filter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry about that! I removed them now. >>>>>>>>>>> For the future, any recommendation for a tool for linting / >>>>>>>>>>> checking >>>>>>>>>>> formating >>>>>>>>>>> rules? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's tools/patcheck. Feed it a git format-patch style of patch >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> find common issues, but keep in mind it can generate a lot of >>>>>>>>>> false >>>>>>>>>> positives. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know if we have documentation about actual formatting >>>>>>>>>> rules >>>>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <_jamrial> shouldn't that panorama filter sent to the ml use the >>>>>>>>> spherical >>>>>>>>> frame side data? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are there actual files that have such data? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that a trick question? I only know the non-standard, Google >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> metadata in mkv and mp4 that lavf can read (was any of this >>>>>>> standardized yet?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that doesn't change that we can tag AVFrames with this info, and >>>>>>> for files which don't have the metadata, it makes sense to me to set >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> with a new vf_format argument or some sort of vf_setinfo (if we don't >>>>>>> have anything like this yet). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The part that is annoying is that vf_panorama still seems to require >>>>>>> setting an output projection, which would make the whole thing more >>>>>>> annoying instead of less, but even then I'd argue it should default >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> taking the AVFrame configuration (AV_FRAME_DATA_SPHERICAL) as input >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> default, even if the filter arguments can override it. >>>>>> >>>>>> That frame side data is very specific and thus considered barely >>>>>> useful >>>>>> here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it at all updated to the latest improvements, like new equi-angular >>>>>> cubemap projection? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I guess not at all, I get this: >>>>> >>>>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x21c1740] Unknown projection type >>>> >>>> Sample? Also, where is this new projection defined? >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLExhpXX0E >>> >>> It is defined by Google? >> >> Vittorio and I used >> https://github.com/google/spatial-media/blob/master/docs/spherical-video-v2-rfc.md >> to write the current Matroska and mov implementations, and by extension >> the AVSphericalMapping API. Specifically the Equirectangular and Cubemap >> projections. >> >> This sample seems to have a "ytmp" projection box, but it's not defined >> in the above document. I guess the name hints at it being a very early >> an internal draft? We can't really do much without a spec... > > The h264/mp4 version has this unknown "ytmp" box, but the vp9/webm one > has a ProjectionType element with a value of 3, plus some binary data in > the ProjectionPrivate element, which according to the spec means a Mesh > projection. We don't currently support that one. > > Weird, seeing mp4 supposedly has the "mshp" box for this.
Do you know of any video sample that have "standard" cubemap layout? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel