Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Ah yeah that makes a lot of sense, Devin. I will keep that in mind for the ntv2 avdevice I created for use with our Kona4. I basically copied the exact structure of the decklink libavdevice as my starting point anyway. It isn’t nearly as flexible and focuses exclusively on capture (demuxing), b

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On Jul 16, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Jonathan Morley wrote: > > That is really interesting feedback guys. I have been thinking about things > mostly in a MOV independent timecode track (or tracks) kind of way, but I > know OMF, MXF, AAF, etc handle it more analogously to packet/frame side data. > >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

That is really interesting feedback guys. I have been thinking about things mostly in a MOV independent timecode track (or tracks) kind of way, but I know OMF, MXF, AAF, etc handle it more analogously to packet/frame side data. Usually ffmpeg has some kind of superset of functionality for handli

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Hi Marton, > > In the current implementation per-frame timecode is stored as > AV_PKT_DATA_STRINGS_METADATA side data, when AVPackets become AVFrames, the > AV_PKT_DATA_STRINGS_METADATA is automatically converted to entries in the > AVFrame->metadata AVDictionary. The dictionary key is "timeco

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: Hi Marton et al, I am revisiting this now that I have access to the BlackMagic DeckLink Duo again. I see what made it into master and had a few questions. 1) Can you please explain more about storing the timecodes as side packet data in each vid

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Hi Marton et al, I am revisiting this now that I have access to the BlackMagic DeckLink Duo again. I see what made it into master and had a few questions. 1) Can you please explain more about storing the timecodes as side packet data in each video packet? Basically is there some convention amon

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: On Jun 7, 2018, at 5:01 PM, Marton Balint wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: [...] Before I only tested with vitc but now have a serial cable connected as well and found a source tape that has distinct values for LTC and VITC timecodes.

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On Jun 7, 2018, at 5:01 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: > > [...] > >> >> Before I only tested with vitc but now have a serial cable connected as well >> and found a source tape that has distinct values for LTC and VITC timecodes. >> The LTC values are fr

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: [...] Before I only tested with vitc but now have a serial cable connected as well and found a source tape that has distinct values for LTC and VITC timecodes. The LTC values are from 1:00:00 to 2:00:00 and the VITC values are from 07:00:00 - 08:00:00.

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On Jun 7, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Dave Rice wrote: > > >> On Jun 6, 2018, at 5:32 PM, Marton Balint wrote: >> >> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: >> On Jun 6, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Marton Balint wrote: On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: >>> In my testing the timecode value set

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 5:32 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: > >>> On Jun 6, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Marton Balint wrote: >>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: >> In my testing the timecode value set here has corrected been associated >> with the first vide

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: On Jun 6, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Marton Balint wrote: On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: In my testing the timecode value set here has corrected been associated with the first video frame (maintaining the timecode-to-first-frame relationship as found

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: > >> In my testing the timecode value set here has corrected been associated with the first video frame (maintaining the timecode-to-first-frame relationship as found on the source vide

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: In my testing the timecode value set here has corrected been associated with the first video frame (maintaining the timecode-to-first-frame relationship as found on the source video stream). Although only having first timecode value known is limiting,

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On Jun 4, 2018, at 12:24 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: > >>> On May 31, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Marton Balint wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: Thank you for the clarification, Dave. It might be that the Blackmagic approach to co

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Dave Rice wrote: On May 31, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Marton Balint wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: Thank you for the clarification, Dave. It might be that the Blackmagic approach to collecting timecode doesn’t work for that one source because it is in the

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On May 31, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Marton Balint wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: > >> Thank you for the clarification, Dave. It might be that the Blackmagic >> approach to collecting timecode doesn’t work for that one source because it >> is in the horizontal space (HANC) i

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> > I'd rather see a new AVPacketSideData type which will contain the timecode as > a string, so you can set it frame-by-frame. For what it’s worth, this is what I’ve done on the decklink output side. I’ve introduced a new side data type and I’m able to decode timecodes provided in H.264 stre

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Thu, 31 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: Thank you for the clarification, Dave. It might be that the Blackmagic approach to collecting timecode doesn’t work for that one source because it is in the horizontal space (HANC) instead of the vertical (VANC). I am not sure. Sadly I don’t think

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Thank you for the clarification, Dave. It might be that the Blackmagic approach to collecting timecode doesn’t work for that one source because it is in the horizontal space (HANC) instead of the vertical (VANC). I am not sure. Sadly I don’t think my solution is all encompassing, but it does see

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Hi Jonathan, > On May 31, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Morley wrote: > > Well that is helpful information if not a bit disappointing. Perhaps if I use > the SDK calls to get the individual timecode components _and_ check the drop > frame flag I can reassemble what the GetString() method on the

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Well that is helpful information if not a bit disappointing. Perhaps if I use the SDK calls to get the individual timecode components _and_ check the drop frame flag I can reassemble what the GetString() method on the IDeckLinkTimecode class is supposed to provide. I will add that to the next p

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Hi Jonathan, > On May 31, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Morley wrote: > > Thank you very much, Dave. I am really curious about the df vs ndf since the > Blackmagic SDK call I am making doesn’t have any arguments for specifying > that kind of distinction. It simply returns what it finds in the SD

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Hi Dave, I took a closer look at these messages. I can see why the “Unable to find timecode” messages are repeated. That is sort of correctly reporting that the current video stream does not have a valid timecode, however reporting it as an error seems unnecessary. How would changing it to a de

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Thank you very much, Dave. I am really curious about the df vs ndf since the Blackmagic SDK call I am making doesn’t have any arguments for specifying that kind of distinction. It simply returns what it finds in the SDI stream. And when I skimmed the movenc timecode handling it doesn’t seem to m

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On May 31, 2018, at 5:49 AM, Jonathan Morley wrote: > > Please take a look at my latest patches. > > NOTE: I no longer have the hardware to test this work! I tested these patches with an Ultrastudio 3D. I find that in some cases it provides the “Unable to set timecode” warning although it

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Please take a look at my latest patches. NOTE: I no longer have the hardware to test this work! On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: > > Thank you Marton, That makes sense to me, but can you please clarify which >> context is t

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Thank you. I will add that and get you a new patch for review. > On May 30, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: > >> Thank you Marton, That makes sense to me, but can you please clarify which >> context is the most appropriate to use? >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Tue, 29 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: Thank you Marton, That makes sense to me, but can you please clarify which context is the most appropriate to use? Just put it in decklink_ctx in the Status section. Don't forget to free it in ff_decklink_read_close. Regards, Marton

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Thank you Marton, That makes sense to me, but can you please clarify which context is the most appropriate to use? Thanks, Jon > On May 29, 2018, at 1:41 AM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: > >> Attaching again from another mail client. > > Thanks.

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Sat, 26 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: Attaching again from another mail client. Thanks. There is one issue I found: You are setting &ctx->video_st->metadata from the VideoInputFrameArrived callback. That runs in a separate thread from the main thread handling read_packet calls, and

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Attaching again from another mail client. On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: > > Attached are the two patches to address your feedback, Marton. Please >> advise. >> >> > Your mail contains no attachments as far as I see. > > >

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: Attached are the two patches to address your feedback, Marton. Please advise. Your mail contains no attachments as far as I see. Regards, Marton ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org htt

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Also please include the frame rate coming from the ultrastudio. I suspect there is a mismatch in the works. On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:36 PM Dave Rice wrote: > > > > On May 25, 2018, at 17:15, Jonathan Morley > wrote: > > > > Thank you for trying it out, Dave. > > > > 1) Can you please tell me m

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:36 PM Dave Rice wrote: > > > > On May 25, 2018, at 17:15, Jonathan Morley > wrote: > > > > Thank you for trying it out, Dave. > > > > 1) Can you please tell me more about how you tested? > > J30 digibeta deck playing a Betacam SP with SDI to an Ultrastudio 3D with > ffm

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On May 25, 2018, at 17:15, Jonathan Morley wrote: > > Thank you for trying it out, Dave. > > 1) Can you please tell me more about how you tested? J30 digibeta deck playing a Betacam SP with SDI to an Ultrastudio 3D with ffmpeg with your patch and configured with decklink. > 2) Did you ru

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Thank you for trying it out, Dave. 1) Can you please tell me more about how you tested? 2) Did you run a capture command with ffmpeg after patching? 3) What was the target output you we using? Thanks, Jon ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffm

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On May 25, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Morley wrote: > >> On May 25, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Marton Balint > > wrote: >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: >> >>> I apologize in advance for the formatting of this message. My mail >>> configuration impeded my effor

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Attached are the two patches to address your feedback, Marton. Please advise. Thanks, Jon > On May 25, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: > >> I apologize in advance for the formatting of this message. My mail >> configuration impeded

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

That sounds great, Kieran! The plan with AJA is to leverage the open source ntv2_v4l2 (AJA video for linux driver) to capture audio, video, and timecode over SDI to a standard video for linux virtual device (aka /dev/video0). Then use the ffmpeg support for v4l2 to read it in and again set the

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Hi Jonathan, On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Morley wrote: > Hi Kieran, > > To answer your question, this change basically takes the first valid TC as a > string and sticks it in the video’s avstream metadata dictionary where other > muxers and encoders look. It does not make an indep

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

Hi Kieran, To answer your question, this change basically takes the first valid TC as a string and sticks it in the video’s avstream metadata dictionary where other muxers and encoders look. It does not make an independent timecode track/stream with samples per frame. That is why I called the p

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

> On May 25, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Marton Balint wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: > >> I apologize in advance for the formatting of this message. My mail >> configuration impeded my efforts to use ‘—send-email’. > > Your mail is corrupted by new lines, attach the .patc

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

I'd love to see some documentation and to know how timecode is stored in the output file. This looks like a really welcome development! ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote: I apologize in advance for the formatting of this message. My mail configuration impeded my efforts to use ‘—send-email’. Your mail is corrupted by new lines, attach the .patch file if you cannot resolve this. This commit did pass 'make fate’

[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Limited timecode support for lavd/decklink

I apologize in advance for the formatting of this message. My mail configuration impeded my efforts to use ‘—send-email’. This commit did pass 'make fate’ though the use of these changes requires decklink hardware so I did not add any new fate tests. By default the new optional behavior is skipped