[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC PATCH 3/3] HACK: avformat: rawenc: allow to output a raw PRFT

[Clément Péron]

Hi Andreas,

On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 13:33, Andreas Rheinhardt
<andreas.rheinhardt at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Clément Péron:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 12:01, Andreas Rheinhardt
> > <andreas.rheinhardt at outlook.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Clément Péron:
> >>> Hi Andreas,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 09:58, Andreas Rheinhardt
> >>> <andreas.rheinhardt at outlook.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Clément Péron:
> >>>>> Hi Michael, Andreas,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 22:50, Andreas Rheinhardt
> >>>>> <andreas.rheinhardt at outlook.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Michael Niedermayer:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:17:00PM +0200, Clément Péron wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Output the producer reference time to a dirty raw output.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <peron.clem at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>  libavformat/rawenc.c | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 122 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this breaks fate-filter-volume and others
> >>>>>>> (Segmentation fault)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I can rerun it with debug symbols and provide peoper gdb output
> >>>>>>> but i suspect given this has "HACK" in the title you are aware of this
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "HACK" tag meaning was not supposed to be: "it's ok if it
> >>>>> segfaults", but more to trigger a discussion is it possible to
> >>>>> properly support an output timestamp in the raw video demux, and if
> >>>>> yes how to do it :)
> >>>>
> >>>> If you need a timestamp for raw video, then use a proper container and
> >>>> not raw video. In fact, this patch basically creates new formats
> >>>> different from all the raw formats.
> >>>
> >>> Yes I agree, but I do not want to add too much overhead nor
> >>> computation processing or memory copy to my pipeline just to mux and
> >>> demux between ffmpeg and my python script.
> >>>
> >>> The idea is to have a very light structure to easily pipe it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Our libraries are meant to be used by API users and are designed for
> >> that. The ffmpeg command line tool is just one user among many and
> >> adding code to a library to circumvent a limitation of ffmpeg (or
> >> another user of the libraries) is not appropriate. We would end up with
> >> a ton of hacks.
> >
> > Yes I agree and maybe the final solution for this is "keep a fork of
> > FFMpeg with your patch on your side",
> >
>
> Yes, that is the likely outcome.
>
> > But my idea is could introducing a "raw-format user-defined" would be
> > acceptable or will it be considered a hack?
> >
> > like we pass the pix_fmt why not passing a raw_fmt to specify the raw
> > output format? It will default to only "packet" but a user could add
> > other metadata if wanted.
>
> This would require us to add hacks and introduce new container formats
> instead of you simply using one of the already existing containers.

I could propose it, if it's an acceptable solution and could also help
other users.

Regards,

>
> - Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".