[FFmpeg-trac] #11080(documentation:new): FFmpeg timestamps do not consistently agree with packet timestamps
FFmpeg
trac at avcodec.org
Sat Jul 13 01:08:33 EEST 2024
#11080: FFmpeg timestamps do not consistently agree with packet timestamps
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: markfilipak | Owner: (none)
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Component:
| documentation
Version: unspecified | Resolution:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: | Reproduced by developer: 0
Analyzed by developer: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Balling):
First of all I agree that, indeed, 11055 sample is more correct with first
4 frames, Open GOP must start with BBI order. (Well, I BB in coding
order.) FFmpeg must have no problem (so it is a bug), IMHO, with decoding
this file even if omit those two preceding PTS B frames. Analyzers decode
11055 and 11088 the same and just fine. Still, the consensus is too
preserve all frame_num like in 11055. Or use mp4 container edit lists?
Second of all, stop sending all that stuff to ffmpeg-user mailing listing,
they do not know what they are talking about except Paul and Michael. This
file has no mixed splices. This IS A BLU-RAY, the spec per H.264 on Blu-
ray requires 4 slices on each frame, this was a big thing when it was
finally added to x264 encoder, which is btw still considered state of the
art...
Finally, I think I found the real issue here: see analyser, why is this P
frame recogized somewhere in the second cut of frames??? BOTH 2 analyzers
behave like this:
Let's open a new bug about how it cannot decode BBI if you cut two first B
frames, maybe because of that frame!! https://i.imgur.com/DcWUnnz.png This
frame PTS 13 (and logically it should be there) yet it places it somewhere
in the end.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/11080#comment:77>
FFmpeg <https://ffmpeg.org>
FFmpeg issue tracker
More information about the FFmpeg-trac
mailing list