On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:05 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
Emphasis on the the "did feel like <IT> to me at that point" part of the sentence. Also I would have really preferred it if you could have put all these points into the discussion when I requested confirmation on whether you were blocking the patch (set) or not, as I already noted in my previous e-mail. Jan _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
