[FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] lavf/isom: add Dolby Vision sample entry codes for HEVC and H.264

Jan Ekström jeebjp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 23:45:39 EET 2018

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:36 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-12-17 22:27 GMT+01:00, Rodger Combs <git at videolan.org>:
> > ffmpeg | branch: master | Rodger Combs <rodger.combs at gmail.com> | Mon Nov  5
> > 10:26:24 2018 -0600| [6ebe88f3a4c427511eba7495896f4a57a2b4b529] | committer:
> > Jan Ekström
> >
> > lavf/isom: add Dolby Vision sample entry codes for HEVC and H.264
> >
> > These are registered identifiers at the MPEG-4 RA, which are
> > defined as to be utilized for Dolby Vision AVC/HEVC streams that
> > are not correctly presentable by standards-compliant AVC/HEVC players.
> >
> > According to the Dolby Vision specification for ISOBMFF, these sample
> > entry codes are specified to have the standard AVC or HEVC decoder
> > configuration box in addition to the Dolby custom DOVIConfigurationBox.
> > This is what enables us to decode the streams without custom parsing.
> >
> > For correct presentation information from the DOVIConfigurationBox
> > is required (YCbCr or modified ICtCP, SDR or HDR, base or enhancement
> > layer).
> This is not only missing a requested mention of the relevant ticket
> where a sample
> for this patch is linked (apparently the only one existing) but also a
> mention of Igor Selivanov who had sent an identical patch to the mailing list.
> Carl Eugen

Thank you for once, for once actually saying what on earth you want.

Now please actually mention how do you want the ticket be mentioned.
It is not "fixed" or "fixes" because it cannot be presented without
the colorspace being figured out. I commented on this.
As for the identical patch, you yourself noted that you quite clearly
could see me not knowing about identical work being done, and I had
clearly put effort into adding the most appropriate descriptions for
the identifiers and writing up a proper commit message. Those by
themselves are most likely much more work than just writing up the
original patch that Rodger wrote. Also, with all due respect I do not
recall us having to mention all of the previous people who had
independently come up with the same solution.

I think all of us would have been much happier if THESE THINGS were
what you had said ages ago. I had wondered for ages what it really was
that you wanted to block my changes for. Which is why I specifically
noted that if you wanted to block my changes then please SAY SO. You
opted to NOT BLOCK and not say anything specifically. And
unfortunately at this point I was already completely exhausted and I
just wanted to get past this thing, so that unless there was something
substantial I would not change the patch set.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list