2018-12-18 18:38 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:30 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2018-12-18 18:24 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:21 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> 2018-12-18 18:17 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:17 PM Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> <ceffm...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2018-12-17 7:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 03:02 Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> 2018-12-17 1:58 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > So as far as it's been possible to test this, that's been >> >> >> > >> > done >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> Could you point me to a dva1 sample? >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > I have not seen any dolby vision samples with avc in the wild. >> >> >> > > You can ask Vittorio if he has some as he noted about >> >> >> > > possibly being able to ask for some before. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The patch is of course ok if Vittorio tested it with his samples. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thank you, Carl Eugen >> >> >> >> >> >> Unfortunately I have no idea what samples Vittorio does or does not >> >> >> possess, he has only mentioned off-hand that he might able to get >> >> >> hold >> >> >> of some if required. And since you were the one requiring them, I >> >> >> pointed you towards him. >> >> >> >> >> >> For myself, I am happy with the following points regarding this: >> >> >> 1. The identifiers are registered at the MPEG-4 RA. >> >> >> 2. There is a proper specification for these mappings that is >> >> >> seemingly kept up-to-date. >> >> >> 3. The mappings specification specifically notes that the only >> >> >> difference between the AVC and HEVC identifiers are the semantics >> >> >> mentioned in ISO/IEC 14496-15. We already have all of the >> >> >> identifiers >> >> >> specified which these mappings are based upon, so those semantics >> >> >> should not matter to us (and if they do, we have already broken >> >> >> those >> >> >> constraints at this point). >> >> >> 4. The mapping specification specifically notes that the given AVC >> >> >> and >> >> >> HEVC identifiers must also include the standard avcC and hvcC boxes >> >> >> so >> >> >> that they can be decoded normally without any additional custom >> >> >> code. >> >> >> 5. We have samples for at least one of the four identifiers that >> >> >> matches points 1 to 4. >> >> >> 6. Android, Chromium, VLC among others have already implemented >> >> >> these >> >> >> identifiers in the same way. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now, if you are not happy with these points, then please clearly >> >> >> state >> >> >> that you are blocking any and all additional identifier additions - >> >> >> no >> >> >> matter how specified - as long as there are no samples on hand for >> >> >> them. >> >> > >> >> > After taking a second look at this sentence, I find this wording >> >> > being >> >> > loaded and antagonizing. It was unprofessional, and I apologize for >> >> > it. >> >> > >> >> > But the wish underneath was to get a clear view into what it was it >> >> > that you wanted. That was what was mostly clouded for me in your >> >> > replies, and that annoyed me to no end. >> >> > >> >> > While I must say that I would have been happy if you had told me you >> >> > were not blocking the patch (set), I did not want a specific outcome >> >> > out of this sentence. I just wanted you to voice your level of >> >> > discomfort with the patch (set) and to voice your current wishes >> >> > regarding it. I had set my wishes on the table with the six points, >> >> > and why I believed the patch (set) was fine as it was. >> >> > >> >> > That is why after I wrote this post I asked Michael what it was that >> >> > was the procedure for cases where developers have seemingly >> >> > irreconcilable differences in opinions regarding a patch set. I did >> >> > not know if that was the case, but the main point was that in the >> >> > unfortunate case that the patch was blocked, and we did not agree on >> >> > some points heavily enough that we could not co-operate, that the >> >> > next >> >> > step could be taken right away so as to not have the patch (set) sit >> >> > there untouched for another week or two. >> >> > >> >> > Unfortunately, you did not respond to or touch this sentence at all, >> >> > which I then interpreted as your comments not being blockers. >> >> >> >> > I hope this makes my intentions and annoyances clear. >> >> >> >> Afaict, it contradicts what you wrote on irc yesterday. >> >> >> >> > I hope that in >> >> > the future we can continue to co-operate, and that this makes it >> >> > clear >> >> > that I do not have any personal grievances nor a vendetta against >> >> > you. >> >> >> >> Carl Eugen >> > >> > Feel free to quote the parts that you think contradict. >> >> I was under the assumption you had read this: >> [21:26:03 CET] <durandal_1707> carl just officially approved your >> patch with single condition to mention ticket #7347 >> >> But re-reading it, there was no indication you actually understood >> what Paul wrote (or even read it), so sorry if I was wrong. >> > > Yes, that specific line I had no interest in. I was tired, and the > ticket was not in my opinion getting fixed with this, as only after we > got the Dolby Vision profile 5 color space reverse engineered would we > actually have these clips properly playing (outside of hardware > decoding paths specifically meant for Dolby Vision). I had commented > in a way on the mailing list thread towards that e-mail that I thought > made it clear that I would not be adding the ticket identifier
> (esp. not at the eleventh hour, which it really did feel like to me at that > point). No, November 6th is not the eleventh hour. > For the record, me and Rodger had already worked on grasping what > standard ICtCp was on the mpv development channel (and Rodger with > Niklas already had a patch around which I still have had not the time > to review on that side of open source), and that seemed to not be the > thing (so the marketing text in Dolby's specification about it being > proprietary in some way was not a lie). Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
