[FFmpeg-user] Developer "cehoyos" closed my bug without any explanation, and without solving it

Sven C. Dack sven.c.dack at sky.com
Wed Oct 12 14:07:31 EEST 2016

On 12/10/16 08:31, Thomas Worth wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Sven C. Dack <sven.c.dack at sky.com> wrote:
>> On 11/10/16 08:31, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
>>> I have a strong belief, that produced MP4 files should be played on
>>> all popular players, and any potential issues must be documented.
>>> Additionally ffmpeg should provide a BIG WARNING that a resulting file
>>> will not be playable on Apple decoders, and offer to fix it
>>> automatically.
>>> -Alexey
>> No. This isn't about what you belief. Before you can expect ffmpeg or all
>> popular players to play your files do you have to provide the correct input
>> files and options to ffmpeg. That's a fact and it's how ffmpeg works. Once
>> you get this right will ffmpeg be your best friend and will produce the
>> files you need, but not before then.
> Has anyone actually looked at the MP4 file, BrokenVideo-8min.mp4? It was
> written with a video track timescale of 0, a track duration of 0 and due to
> that, outrageous packet durations. Regardless of the quality of input
> (which I'm sure was bad), the muxer should still be able to detect that
> something is obviously wrong. In this case, the muxer should probably just
> fail with an error. No reasonable person should expect MP4s written this
> way to work correctly. Based on the fact that ffmpeg is writing timescale 0
> and duration 0, I'd say this should probably be considered a bug. But
> that's just my opinion.

Let's not make ffmpeg more pedantic.

It has so far been always up to the users to decide what output they need and 
otherwise for ffmpeg to default to producing the best it has to offer. Most 
users then don't have a problem with this and are happy to accept it when the 
best isn't what they need but to use the options to produce a video more 
suitable for them.

Let's also not forget that the problem is with an Apple player. Those get 
replaced each year by a next generation. Does ffmpeg really need to default to 
producing videos for a piece of hardware which at the day it lands on the shelf 
is already considered outdated by its maker?

More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list