Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/7 v4] avcodec: add an Immersive Audio Model and Formats frame split bsf

[Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinhardt@outlook.com>]

James Almer:
> On 2/12/2024 1:40 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>> James Almer:
>>> On 2/6/2024 10:05 AM, James Almer wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Now reading decriptors from extradata, plus a setting to ensure any
>>>> descriptors
>>>> present inband are omitted has been added.
>>>>
>>>>    doc/bitstream_filters.texi            |  16 +
>>>>    libavcodec/bitstream_filters.c        |   1 +
>>>>    libavcodec/bsf/Makefile               |   1 +
>>>>    libavcodec/bsf/iamf_frame_split_bsf.c | 887
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    4 files changed, 905 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644 libavcodec/bsf/iamf_frame_split_bsf.c
>>>
>>> Will apply the set soon if there are no objections.
>>
>> I still object to the BSF in #1 existing as it just duplicates parsing
>> code into lavc and lavf. And the issue with creating new framings for
>> stuff for which no framing except raw data can't exist is still there.
> 
> I insist on using the split bsf, but i can try to remove the merge one
> and do that within lavf, to avoid creating packets with OBU framing.

Why is splitting not simply done inside lavf (and inside the demuxer,
not the generic code in demux.c)? What is the advantage of that? Do such
packets as the split bsf expects exist somewhere in the wild outside of
isobmff files?

- Andreas

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".