[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] movenc: add timecode track support.
nichot20 at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 4 16:22:39 CEST 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Clément Bœsch <ubitux at gmail.com>
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012, 15:03
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] movenc: add timecode track support.
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:27:52PM +0000, Tim Nicholson wrote:
>> On 20/03/12 08:00, Clément Bœsch wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 07:39:01AM +0000, Tim Nicholson wrote:
>> >> On 09/03/12 16:51, Clément Bœsch wrote:
>> >>> From: Clément Bœsch <clement.boesch at smartjog.com>
>> >>> The example in the QT specs shows a likely invalid gmin atom
> size, which
>> >>> suggests tmcd atom is contained in the gmin one, while it is
> actually in
>> >>> the gmhd atom, following gmin (according to the given layout
> on the same
>> >>> page, and various samples):
>> >>> [..]
>> >> ping.
>> > Patch rebased for review, no functional changes from previously
>> OK this sort of half works, but something isn't quite right.
>> Ffprobe reports the timecode OK as does FCP7 and sebsky. *However* if you
>> along the clip the timecode gets lost/freezes. This does not happen with a
>> genuine clip.
>> Inspecting the clip in Quicktime7 using <Command> J and comparing
> with the same
>> clip exported out of FCP shows a significant difference.
>> Whilst the duration of my sample clip is shown as 01:01.92 for all tracks
> in the
>> exported (genuine) version. The ffmpeg version shows the timecode track as
>> only 4 frames long. (By comparison ffmbc timecode track has the same
> duration as
>> the clip and scrolls OK)
> I did a full re-check and fixed a "little" thing; tcmi atom was
> missing 16
> bits in the middle (it's not in the specs, but it seems there is indeed 16
> "unknown" bits in the samples I have). I don't know if that will
> help (it
> shifts a few things so maybe it does).
> However, I couldn't find anything suspicious in the durations or timescale
> related fields, so if that's still reproducible with the attached patch,
> could you share the original samples, the command line you used, and
> expected output (from QT7 or anything)?
Hi Clément, I am currently now on holiday so won't be able to test until I get back after 16th April. Ping me if you don't hear anything then...
> Anyway, thank you for testing it and raising feedback,
> Clément B.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel