[FFmpeg-devel] Patch for "non monotone timestamp" error

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:24:24AM +0200, Diep Ho wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel-bounces at mplayerhq.hu [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-
> > bounces at mplayerhq.hu] On Behalf Of Michael Niedermayer
> > Sent: vendredi 8 ao?t 2008 20:08
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Patch for "non monotone timestamp" error
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 10:07:59AM +0200, Diep Ho wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ffmpeg-devel-bounces at mplayerhq.hu [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-
> > > > bounces at mplayerhq.hu] On Behalf Of Michael Niedermayer
> > > > Sent: jeudi 7 ao?t 2008 20:41
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Patch for "non monotone timestamp"
> > error
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 05:25:38PM +0200, Diep Ho wrote:
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ffmpeg-devel-bounces at mplayerhq.hu [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-
> > > > > > bounces at mplayerhq.hu] On Behalf Of Michael Niedermayer
> > > > > > Sent: jeudi 7 ao?t 2008 13:07
> > > > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Patch for "non monotone timestamp"
> > > > error
> > > > >
> > > > >From my understanding, these files are valid. And they should be
> > > > correctly read.
> > > >
> > > > you will have to quote the specification if you think so.
> > >
> > > The ISO/IEC 11172-1 (P18) reads:
> > 
> > MPEG 1 video is described in 11172-2
> 
> The timestamps of packets are described in 11172-1. If you want me to cite something about the timestamps in 11172-2, it is just impossible!!! 
> 
> Why do you still refuse to accept that our files are valid? I don't understand.

I can also quote the asf spec about timestamps this doesnt make every codec
stored in it to allow them.

mpeg1 video and the reordering is described in the mpeg1 video spec.

i do not know for certain if the files are valid or not. But we will not
support this combination unless such files are found in the wild, i am
simply trying to avoid adding more messy special cases. A single user
who managed to create such files with ffmpeg is not a reason for us to
belive such files are valid and to support them.
I wont dispute that the spec does not clearly say if its valid or not.

Either way, if you want this supported you have to proof that such files
do exist in the wild except ones (in)directly created by you. AND you
have to provide a patch that is working, nothing you posted even got close
to working.
A simple test would be to take normal mpeg1 with and without B frames cut
them at random byte offsets and ensure that your patch does never change
any single generated timestamp from these files.
(patches failing this tests are not discussable)

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

It is not what we do, but why we do it that matters.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080811/64b0441f/attachment.pgp>