[FFmpeg-devel] New patch for mpegts.c
michaelni at gmx.at
Wed Oct 24 05:26:59 CEST 2012
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:51:28PM +0100, JULIAN GARDNER wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2012, 17:36
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] New patch for mpegts.c
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 08:46:07AM +0100, JULIAN GARDNER wrote:
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>
> >> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> > <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2012, 1:41
> >> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] New patch for mpegts.c
> >> >
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:34:27PM +0100, JULIAN GARDNER wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >________________________________
> >> >> > From: Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>
> >> >> >To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> >> > <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> >> >> >Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 17:16
> >> >> >Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] New patch for mpegts.c
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:33:01PM +0100, JULIAN GARDNER
> > wrote:
> >> > If its about spec compliance, please quote the spec that requires
> >> > this behavior.
> >> >
> >> ETS 300468 5.1.1 d
> > http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/300400_300499/300468/01.11.01_60/en_300468v011101p.pdf
> > doesnt say one should discard things with equal version numbers
> "When the characteristics of the TS described in the SI given in the present document change (e.g. new events start, different composition of elementary streams for a given service), then new SI data shall be sent containing the updated information. A new version of the SI data is signalled by sending a sub_table with the same identifiers as the previous sub_table containing the relevant data, but with the next value of version_number."
> "document change" " the next value of version_number", so to me this means that if the data is THE SAME then the version number will be the same, and i guess that the guys who wrote the spec did this so you DONT have to process the SAME data over and over again, what it was added for was hardware filtering, which if you have spent 15+ years writing code for sat receivers etc you will know this. Why would you want to process possibly millions of sections which contain the SAME data, to just produce the same tables?.
> Now if you keep on banging on about the .00000001% of people who concatenate 2 ts streams and do not follow the spec and either make sure the SI data is the same, which means the version number the same, or make the version number follow by becoming the next version then we are at an impasse, because i think your wrong on this, but as your in charge i will await your decision.
> And what are we discard, we are just not processing THE SAME DATA over and over again.
> >> Again we either process xxxx thousand sections or we do as the spec says
> > and process only new/updated?
> > The spec doesnt say that, it says:
> > d) version_number:
> > - When the characteristics of the TS described in the SI given in the
> > present document change (e.g. new
> > events start, different composition of elementary streams for a given
> > service), then new SI data shall be
> > sent containing the updated information. A new version of the SI data
> > is signalled by sending a sub_table
> > with the same identifiers as the previous sub_table containing the
> > relevant data, but with the next value
> > of version_number.
> > - For the SI tables specified in the present document, the version_number
> > applies to all sections of a
> > sub_table.
> > That speaks about "when X then ... shall be sent ...", sending happens
> > on the muxer side, not the demuxer. The text quoted says nothing about
> > what a demuxer should or should not do with what it receives. It
> > simply describes what a demuxer can expect from a valid DVB stream.
> > A concatenated stream as you already explained is not a valid DVB
> > stream ...
> So your now saying that the spec is only for the muxer, can you show me the spec for the demuxer then that is different, again i come back to the "New version .... but with the next value of version number". This spec if for DVB compatible systems, both muxers and demuxers.
> So have you tested what happens when you play a concatenated stream on a DVB compliant receiver, you will get the same as with my modifications. As you always seem to tell people, fix the problem 1st. The only problem i can see is that you want the decoder NOT to follow the spec, but instead work for the NON COMPATIBLE streams, when instead the concatenate should be fixed to produce correct TS streams.
> I will leave it now and let you decide, as this circle will just keep going round and round. If it will be included in any future ffmpeg release then great if not then i will just keep it in my local tree.
Patches must provide an overall improvment to be accepted.
Noone has shown a meassureable improvment for it yet and
the patch breaks seeking and breaks concatenated streams
If you want to keep it in its current form in your local tree then
i think you make a mistake.
Instead IMHO you should rethink what improvment the patch provides
and then objectively test if it really does. If it does, then fix
the issues and repost the patch so it gets included in ffmpeg and
all users benefit.
OTOH if it doesnt provide a real user vissible improvment, lets just
lay it rest and work on something that does.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Frequently ignored awnser#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User
questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML.
And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel