2018-11-10 0:19 GMT+01:00, Marton Balint <c...@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? Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".