[FFmpeg-user] HD MXF SMPTE ST377 Standard Compliance Problem with multiple IndexTableSegments carring Unique ID twins (maybe a bug)
Carl Eugen Hoyos
ceffmpeg at gmail.com
Sat Nov 10 01:30:54 EET 2018
2018-11-10 0:19 GMT+01:00, Marton Balint <cus at passwd.hu>:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018, Lou Logan wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>> (Continuing a discussion I had with several people who archive.)
>>> I wonder if this is all intentional (seriously!), you have a
>>> specification that from all I know is unclear, multiple different
>>> and incompatible implementations and several commercial
>>> applications that tell you what's wrong in the files - but
>>> nobody seems to be very interested in fixing these "issues".
>> This reminds me of a few conversations I've had with those seeking
>> alternatives in the seemingly locked-in world of the legacy cable
>> broadcast stream conformation cycle. Luckily I'm not involved in
>> broadcast but the situation (a few years ago at least) seemed to be:
>> "Buy our $4000 (USD) analyzer to see what we say is 'wrong' with your
>> input. Buy our $6000 muxer to make it pass our analyzer."
> Heh :)
> Well, MXF is complicated, and based on what do you want to be compatible
> with there are many flavours. Some issues reported by the analyzers can be
> fixed, some can't be, because of the limited architecture of ffmpeg.
> I guess there is no huge interest to improve the mxf muxer because BMXlib
> tools like raw2bmx already do pretty good mxf wrapping (much better than
> ffmpeg) and they support many flavours. I suggest using that for creating
> standards compliant MXF.
We improved many part of FFmpeg although other software existed...
> On the other hand offering a bounty for fixing issues in the ffmpeg MXF
> muxer might be an option, as far as I remember Baptiste and Michael did
> work lately on mxfenc.
I thought you did too, no?
More information about the ffmpeg-user