On 15/09/14 00:24, "Martin Storsjö" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Raento Mika wrote: > >> On 11/09/14 14:18, "Martin Storsjö" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Raento Mika wrote: >>> >>>> After looking at the files I have, I think we need a parser for the >>>>Tfxd >>>> to get a real fix. >>> >>> Yeah, that's pretty much my conclusion as well. I can try to create a >>> patch for that, but it'll probably take until next week. >>> >>>> I'll resubmit a patch that just writes the first chunk start time and >>>> fixes the last duration but doesn't shift all the timestamps. >>> >>> Ok, that sounds good. >>> >>> // Martin >>> >> >> So that was a false track: only live ismv files contain txfds - and they >> do not contain mfra; at least that's the case with my files and what >> happens in ffmpeg: if you tell it to output isml, it'll output txfds, >>and >> if you ask for ismv it won't. > >I had the idea that these were present in on-demand streams as well, but >after rechecking the spec they do indeed seem to be optional (and should >be ignored for on-demand streams). > >The ismv muxer in libavformat that I wrote does add them for on-demand >streams as well though, which doesn't really seem to match what you >describe. You are quite right, I must have got my test files mixed up. Libav/ffmpeg does produce tfxd boxes, our third-party packager does not. Mika > >The tfxd boxes (which tell the identity of the current fragment) are >always written when you write ism*, but the tfrf boxes (which tell you >about the timestamps and durations for upcoming fragments) are only >written if you specify the ism_lookahead option. Can you confirm this, or >do you see different behaviour? > >> This also means that AFAICT we should be able to rewrite the start time >>to >> 0 in the non-live case. > >Not quite. However even in the non-live case, if we rewrite the >timestamps >to start at 0, the timestamps in the mfra/tfra index won't match with the >ismc file (and thus, with what clients will request) and won't be usable >with e.g. IIS. > >Anyway, your updated patch doesn't seem to be shifting the timestamps any >longer, so this is just general discussion. > >// Martin _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
