On 3/9/2018 12:12 PM, James Almer wrote: > On 3/9/2018 12:04 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> On 3/9/18, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 3/9/2018 7:05 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>>> On 3/9/18, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/9/18, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 09:15:13 +0100 >>>>>> Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/9/18, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:53:48 -0300 >>>>>>>> James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2018 9:50 PM, Hazem Ashmawy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [PATCH] avfilter: add panorama filter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry about that! I removed them now. >>>>>>>>>> For the future, any recommendation for a tool for linting / >>>>>>>>>> checking >>>>>>>>>> formating >>>>>>>>>> rules? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There's tools/patcheck. Feed it a git format-patch style of patch to >>>>>>>>> find common issues, but keep in mind it can generate a lot of false >>>>>>>>> positives. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know if we have documentation about actual formatting rules >>>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <_jamrial> shouldn't that panorama filter sent to the ml use the >>>>>>>> spherical >>>>>>>> frame side data? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are there actual files that have such data? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that a trick question? I only know the non-standard, Google specific >>>>>> metadata in mkv and mp4 that lavf can read (was any of this >>>>>> standardized yet?). >>>>>> >>>>>> But that doesn't change that we can tag AVFrames with this info, and >>>>>> for files which don't have the metadata, it makes sense to me to set it >>>>>> with a new vf_format argument or some sort of vf_setinfo (if we don't >>>>>> have anything like this yet). >>>>>> >>>>>> The part that is annoying is that vf_panorama still seems to require >>>>>> setting an output projection, which would make the whole thing more >>>>>> annoying instead of less, but even then I'd argue it should default to >>>>>> taking the AVFrame configuration (AV_FRAME_DATA_SPHERICAL) as input by >>>>>> default, even if the filter arguments can override it. >>>>> >>>>> That frame side data is very specific and thus considered barely useful >>>>> here. >>>>> >>>>> Is it at all updated to the latest improvements, like new equi-angular >>>>> cubemap projection? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I guess not at all, I get this: >>>> >>>> [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x21c1740] Unknown projection type >>> >>> Sample? Also, where is this new projection defined? >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLExhpXX0E >> >> It is defined by Google? > > Vittorio and I used > https://github.com/google/spatial-media/blob/master/docs/spherical-video-v2-rfc.md > to write the current Matroska and mov implementations, and by extension > the AVSphericalMapping API. Specifically the Equirectangular and Cubemap > projections. > > This sample seems to have a "ytmp" projection box, but it's not defined > in the above document. I guess the name hints at it being a very early > an internal draft? We can't really do much without a spec...
The h264/mp4 version has this unknown "ytmp" box, but the vp9/webm one has a ProjectionType element with a value of 3, plus some binary data in the ProjectionPrivate element, which according to the spec means a Mesh projection. We don't currently support that one. Weird, seeing mp4 supposedly has the "mshp" box for this. > > In any case, I insist much like wm4 that a filter like this should use > the metadata stored in the AVFrame if available. > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel