[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Add libavformat option to ignore non monotime dts timestamps
Fri Sep 24 23:42:18 CEST 2010
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 04:28:33PM -0400, Sam Creasey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 01:14:09PM -0400, Sam Creasey wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Scheutzow
> >> <mike.scheutzow at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> >> > Sam Creasey wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> This patch adds an option which disables an error check for dts
> >> >> ordering in compute_pkt_fields2(). ?This was needed to store the RTP
> >> >> stream from a particular model camera usefully (using the existing
> >> >> igndts flag resulted in rather jumpy playback of the final stream).
> >> >> Should have no effect if the new option is not specified.
> >> >
> >> > I am wondering if this is a reasonable way to solve the problem. It seems
> >> > like this feature could lead to the creation of an even more badly-formed
> >> > output file.
> >> >
> >> > Please give us more info:
> >> >
> >> > 1. what is the format of the RTP payload? Is it a well-known container type?
> >> The RTP payload is H264 video, using payload type 96 (through rtpmap
> >> in the SDP). ?AFAICT, the camera in question is using a standard H.264
> >> container, as most tools/players seem to be able to record/play the
> >> stream. ?I haven't done the RFC diving to actually hand-decode the
> >> incoming packets.
> >> > 2. what container type are you writing the output to?
> >> ASF, though this particular patch is also needed for AVI output to
> >> work. ?I haven't tried any other containers.
> >> > 3. is the failing timestamp equal to the preceeding one, or is the pkt->dts
> >> > value actually smaller?
> >> Equal.
> >> > 4. do you know if the container already has these "bad" DTS timestamps, or
> >> > are they being created by FFmpeg itself?
> >> Well, that led me down a much more complicated road of investigation
> >> than "this error seems to be causing me problems, I'll just turn it
> >> off..."
> >> They appear to be generated by FFmpeg itself, particularly in
> >> ffmpeg.c:output_packet(), on line 1748 during the call to
> >> av_rescale_q() in the case that the input packet's dts was equal to
> >> AV_NOPTS_VALUE. ?In the most reproducable case, av_rescale_q returns 1
> >> for two packets in a row, which eventually causes the check in
> >> compute_pkt_fields2() to fail.
> >> I've seen other cases where the failure was of a repeated dts of other
> >> larger numbers (50, in one case), though that occured before I'd
> >> instrumented to code sufficiently to see where the dts was coming
> >> from.
> >> As an additonal note, the case of the duplicated timestamp appears to
> >> only occur when both the dts and pts values of the pkt argument to
> >> output_frame() are AV_NOPTS_VALUE. ? In the alternate case, whatever
> >> is generating the input to output_frame() begins assigning values to
> >> pts, and the case I kludged around by ignorning the later error is
> >> avoided.
> >> I have a strong suspicion that having found something slightly closer
> >> to a root cause, my odds of getting a patch accepted which simply
> >> papers over it are quite low, and the odds of my having to spend many
> >> more hours in this code have increased dramatically...
> >> I'll continue digging and see if there's a more "proper" way to
> >> resolve this issue.
> > do the packets have a duration set?
> > if yes why is it not used to extrapolate dts?
> > if no, why not?
> > also make sure the timestamps are not rounded down to lower precission that
> > too can make 2 equal
> I can give you a little more information on this. The problem
> basically seems to be around the following calculation in
> if (pkt->dts == AV_NOPTS_VALUE)
> opkt.dts = av_rescale_q(ist->pts, AV_TIME_BASE_Q, ost->st->time_base);
> When ist->pts has incremented to the point that av_rescale_q returns 1
> for two consecutive frames, ffmpeg bombs out on the monotonic
> timestamp check. Often, this is avoided because dts == 0 is special
> cased in the test, and the input frames will start having a valid dts
> before its->pts has incremented sufficiently to cause a problem.
so you say ist->pts differs but opkt.dts matches for 2 packets?
what is ost->st->time_base and by what is ist-pts increased and what is
the actual duration of the packet aka the correct increment for ist->pts?
partial awnser is usefull too!
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into
despotisms. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel