2018-12-18 19:16 GMT+01:00, Jan Ekström <jee...@gmail.com>: > 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.
The e-mail in which you requested confirmation (which one was it?) may have been so long and contained so many points that I got distracted and didn't realize I had to comment, possibly because I considered my request so simple. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
