Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (13791)

• WebVTT as a W3C Recommendation

  1er janvier 2014, par silvia

  Three weeks ago I attended TPAC, the annual meeting of W3C Working Groups. One of the meetings was of the Timed Text Working Group (TT-WG), that has been specifying TTML, the Timed Text Markup Language. It is now proposed that WebVTT be also standardised through the same Working Group.

  How did that happen, you may ask, in particular since WebVTT and TTML have in the past been portrayed as rival caption formats ? How will the WebVTT spec that is currently under development in the Text Track Community Group (TT-CG) move through a Working Group process ?

  I’ll explain first why there is a need for WebVTT to become a W3C Recommendation, and then how this is proposed to be part of the Timed Text Working Group deliverables, and finally how I can see this working between the TT-CG and the TT-WG.

  Advantages of a W3C Recommendation

  TTML is a XML-based markup format for captions developed during the time that XML was all the hotness. It has become a W3C standard (a so-called “Recommendation”) despite not having been implemented in any browsers (if you ask me : that’s actually a flaw of the W3C standardisation process : it requires only two interoperable implementations of any kind – and that could be anyone’s JavaScript library or Flash demonstrator – it doesn’t actually require browser implementations. But I digress…). To be fair, a subpart of TTML is by now implemented in Internet Explorer, but all the other major browsers have thus far rejected proposals of implementation.

  Because of its Recommendation status, TTML has become the basis for several other caption standards that other SDOs have picked : the SMPTE’s SMPTE-TT format, the EBU’s EBU-TT format, and the DASH Industry Forum’s use of SMPTE-TT. SMPTE-TT has also become the “safe harbour” format for the US legislation on captioning as decided by the FCC. (Note that the FCC requirements for captions on the Web are actually based on a list of features rather than requiring a specific format. But that will be the topic of a different blog post…)

  WebVTT is much younger than TTML. TTML was developed as an interchange format among caption authoring systems. WebVTT was built for rendering in Web browsers and with HTML5 in mind. It meets the requirements of the <track> element and supports more than just captions/subtitles. WebVTT is popular with browser developers and has already been implemented in all major browsers (Firefox Nightly is the last to implement it – all others have support already released).

  As we can see and as has been proven by the HTML spec and multiple other specs : browsers don’t wait for specifications to have W3C Recommendation status before they implement them. Nor do they really care about the status of a spec – what they care about is whether a spec makes sense for the Web developer and user communities and whether it fits in the Web platform. WebVTT has obviously achieved this status, even with an evolving spec. (Note that the spec tries very hard not to break backwards compatibility, thus all past implementations will at least be compatible with the more basic features of the spec.)

  Given that Web browsers don’t need WebVTT to become a W3C standard, why then should we spend effort in moving the spec through the W3C process to become a W3C Recommendation ?

  The modern Web is now much bigger than just Web browsers. Web specifications are being used in all kinds of devices including TV set-top boxes, phone and tablet apps, and even unexpected devices such as white goods. Videos are increasingly omnipresent thus exposing deaf and hard-of-hearing users to ever-growing challenges in interacting with content on diverse devices. Some of these devices will not use auto-updating software but fixed versions so can’t easily adapt to new features. Thus, caption producers (both commercial and community) need to be able to author captions (and other video accessibility content as defined by the HTML5 element) towards a feature set that is clearly defined to be supported by such non-updating devices.

  Understandably, device vendors in this space have a need to build their technology on standardised specifications. SDOs for such device technologies like to reference fixed specifications so the feature set is not continually updating. To reference WebVTT, they could use a snapshot of the specification at any time and reference that, but that’s not how SDOs work. They prefer referencing an officially sanctioned and tested version of a specification – for a W3C specification that means creating a W3C Recommendation of the WebVTT spec.

  Taking WebVTT on a W3C recommendation track is actually advantageous for browsers, too, because a test suite will have to be developed that proves that features are implemented in an interoperable manner. In summary, I can see the advantages and personally support the effort to take WebVTT through to a W3C Recommendation.

  Choice of Working Group

  FAIK this is the first time that a specification developed in a Community Group is being moved into the recommendation track. This is something that has been expected when the W3C created CGs, but not something that has an established process yet.

  The first question of course is which WG would take it through to Recommendation ? Would we create a new Working Group or find an existing one to move the specification through ? Since WGs involve a lot of overhead, the preference was to add WebVTT to the charter of an existing WG. The two obvious candidates were the HTML WG and the TT-WG – the first because it’s where WebVTT originated and the latter because it’s the closest thematically.

  Adding a deliverable to a WG is a major undertaking. The TT-WG is currently in the process of re-chartering and thus a suggestion was made to add WebVTT to the milestones of this WG. TBH that was not my first choice. Since I’m already an editor in the HTML WG and WebVTT is very closely related to HTML and can be tested extensively as part of HTML, I preferred the HTML WG. However, adding WebVTT to the TT-WG has some advantages, too.

  Since TTML is an exchange format, lots of captions that will be created (at least professionally) will be in TTML and TTML-related formats. It makes sense to create a mapping from TTML to WebVTT for rendering in browsers. The expertise of both, TTML and WebVTT experts is required to develop a good mapping – as has been shown when we developed the mapping from CEA608/708 to WebVTT. Also, captioning experts are already in the TT-WG, so it helps to get a second set of eyes onto WebVTT.

  A disadvantage of moving a specification out of a CG into a WG is, however, that you potentially lose a lot of the expertise that is already involved in the development of the spec. People don’t easily re-subscribe to additional mailing lists or want the additional complexity of involving another community (see e.g. this email).

  So, a good process needs to be developed to allow everyone to contribute to the spec in the best way possible without requiring duplicate work. How can we do that ?

  The forthcoming process

  At TPAC the TT-WG discussed for several hours what the next steps are in taking WebVTT through the TT-WG to recommendation status (agenda with slides). I won’t bore you with the different views – if you are keen, you can read the minutes.

  What I came away with is the following process :

  1. Fix a few more bugs in the CG until we’re happy with the feature set in the CG. This should match the feature set that we realistically expect devices to implement for a first version of the WebVTT spec.
  2. Make a FSA (Final Specification Agreement) in the CG to create a stable reference and a clean IPR position.
  3. Assuming that the TT-WG’s charter has been approved with WebVTT as a milestone, we would next bring the FSA specification into the TT-WG as FPWD (First Public Working Draft) and immediately do a Last Call which effectively freezes the feature set (this is possible because there has already been wide community review of the WebVTT spec) ; in parallel, the CG can continue to develop the next version of the WebVTT spec with new features (just like it is happening with the HTML5 and HTML5.1 specifications).
  4. Develop a test suite and address any issues in the Last Call document (of course, also fix these issues in the CG version of the spec).
  5. As per W3C process, substantive and minor changes to Last Call documents have to be reported and raised issues addressed before the spec can progress to the next level : Candidate Recommendation status.
  6. For the next step – Proposed Recommendation status – an implementation report is necessary, and thus the test suite needs to be finalized for the given feature set. The feature set may also be reduced at this stage to just the ones implemented interoperably, leaving any other features for the next version of the spec.
  7. The final step is Recommendation status, which simply requires sufficient support and endorsement by W3C members.

  The first version of the WebVTT spec naturally has a focus on captioning (and subtitling), since this has been the dominant use case that we have focused on this far and it’s the part that is the most compatibly implemented feature set of WebVTT in browsers. It’s my expectation that the next version of WebVTT will have a lot more features related to audio descriptions, chapters and metadata. Thus, this seems a good time for a first version feature freeze.

  There are still several obstacles towards progressing WebVTT as a milestone of the TT-WG. Apart from the need to get buy-in from the TT-WG, the TT-CG, and the AC (Adivisory Committee who have to approve the new charter), we’re also looking at the license of the specification document.

  The CG specification has an open license that allows creating derivative work as long as there is attribution, while the W3C document license for documents on the recommendation track does not allow the creation of derivative work unless given explicit exceptions. This is an issue that is currently being discussed in the W3C with a proposal for a CC-BY license on the Recommendation track. However, my view is that it’s probably ok to use the different document licenses : the TT-WG will work on WebVTT 1.0 and give it a W3C document license, while the CG starts working on the next WebVTT version under the open CG license. It probably actually makes sense to have a less open license on a frozen spec.

  Making the best of a complicated world

  WebVTT is now proposed as part of the recharter of the TT-WG. I have no idea how complicated the process will become to achieve a W3C WebVTT 1.0 Recommendation, but I am hoping that what is outlined above will be workable in such a way that all of us get to focus on progressing the technology.

  At TPAC I got the impression that the TT-WG is committed to progressing WebVTT to Recommendation status. I know that the TT-CG is committed to continue developing WebVTT to its full potential for all kinds of media-time aligned content with new kinds already discussed at FOMS. Let’s enable both groups to achieve their goals. As a consequence, we will allow the two formats to excel where they do : TTML as an interchange format and WebVTT as a browser rendering format.

• WebVTT as a W3C Recommendation

  1er janvier 2014, par silvia

  Three weeks ago I attended TPAC, the annual meeting of W3C Working Groups. One of the meetings was of the Timed Text Working Group (TT-WG), that has been specifying TTML, the Timed Text Markup Language. It is now proposed that WebVTT be also standardised through the same Working Group.

  How did that happen, you may ask, in particular since WebVTT and TTML have in the past been portrayed as rival caption formats ? How will the WebVTT spec that is currently under development in the Text Track Community Group (TT-CG) move through a Working Group process ?

  I’ll explain first why there is a need for WebVTT to become a W3C Recommendation, and then how this is proposed to be part of the Timed Text Working Group deliverables, and finally how I can see this working between the TT-CG and the TT-WG.

  Advantages of a W3C Recommendation

  TTML is a XML-based markup format for captions developed during the time that XML was all the hotness. It has become a W3C standard (a so-called “Recommendation”) despite not having been implemented in any browsers (if you ask me : that’s actually a flaw of the W3C standardisation process : it requires only two interoperable implementations of any kind – and that could be anyone’s JavaScript library or Flash demonstrator – it doesn’t actually require browser implementations. But I digress…). To be fair, a subpart of TTML is by now implemented in Internet Explorer, but all the other major browsers have thus far rejected proposals of implementation.

  Because of its Recommendation status, TTML has become the basis for several other caption standards that other SDOs have picked : the SMPTE’s SMPTE-TT format, the EBU’s EBU-TT format, and the DASH Industry Forum’s use of SMPTE-TT. SMPTE-TT has also become the “safe harbour” format for the US legislation on captioning as decided by the FCC. (Note that the FCC requirements for captions on the Web are actually based on a list of features rather than requiring a specific format. But that will be the topic of a different blog post…)

  WebVTT is much younger than TTML. TTML was developed as an interchange format among caption authoring systems. WebVTT was built for rendering in Web browsers and with HTML5 in mind. It meets the requirements of the <track> element and supports more than just captions/subtitles. WebVTT is popular with browser developers and has already been implemented in all major browsers (Firefox Nightly is the last to implement it – all others have support already released).

  As we can see and as has been proven by the HTML spec and multiple other specs : browsers don’t wait for specifications to have W3C Recommendation status before they implement them. Nor do they really care about the status of a spec – what they care about is whether a spec makes sense for the Web developer and user communities and whether it fits in the Web platform. WebVTT has obviously achieved this status, even with an evolving spec. (Note that the spec tries very hard not to break backwards compatibility, thus all past implementations will at least be compatible with the more basic features of the spec.)

  Given that Web browsers don’t need WebVTT to become a W3C standard, why then should we spend effort in moving the spec through the W3C process to become a W3C Recommendation ?

  The modern Web is now much bigger than just Web browsers. Web specifications are being used in all kinds of devices including TV set-top boxes, phone and tablet apps, and even unexpected devices such as white goods. Videos are increasingly omnipresent thus exposing deaf and hard-of-hearing users to ever-growing challenges in interacting with content on diverse devices. Some of these devices will not use auto-updating software but fixed versions so can’t easily adapt to new features. Thus, caption producers (both commercial and community) need to be able to author captions (and other video accessibility content as defined by the HTML5 element) towards a feature set that is clearly defined to be supported by such non-updating devices.

  Understandably, device vendors in this space have a need to build their technology on standardised specifications. SDOs for such device technologies like to reference fixed specifications so the feature set is not continually updating. To reference WebVTT, they could use a snapshot of the specification at any time and reference that, but that’s not how SDOs work. They prefer referencing an officially sanctioned and tested version of a specification – for a W3C specification that means creating a W3C Recommendation of the WebVTT spec.

  Taking WebVTT on a W3C recommendation track is actually advantageous for browsers, too, because a test suite will have to be developed that proves that features are implemented in an interoperable manner. In summary, I can see the advantages and personally support the effort to take WebVTT through to a W3C Recommendation.

  Choice of Working Group

  FAIK this is the first time that a specification developed in a Community Group is being moved into the recommendation track. This is something that has been expected when the W3C created CGs, but not something that has an established process yet.

  The first question of course is which WG would take it through to Recommendation ? Would we create a new Working Group or find an existing one to move the specification through ? Since WGs involve a lot of overhead, the preference was to add WebVTT to the charter of an existing WG. The two obvious candidates were the HTML WG and the TT-WG – the first because it’s where WebVTT originated and the latter because it’s the closest thematically.

  Adding a deliverable to a WG is a major undertaking. The TT-WG is currently in the process of re-chartering and thus a suggestion was made to add WebVTT to the milestones of this WG. TBH that was not my first choice. Since I’m already an editor in the HTML WG and WebVTT is very closely related to HTML and can be tested extensively as part of HTML, I preferred the HTML WG. However, adding WebVTT to the TT-WG has some advantages, too.

  Since TTML is an exchange format, lots of captions that will be created (at least professionally) will be in TTML and TTML-related formats. It makes sense to create a mapping from TTML to WebVTT for rendering in browsers. The expertise of both, TTML and WebVTT experts is required to develop a good mapping – as has been shown when we developed the mapping from CEA608/708 to WebVTT. Also, captioning experts are already in the TT-WG, so it helps to get a second set of eyes onto WebVTT.

  A disadvantage of moving a specification out of a CG into a WG is, however, that you potentially lose a lot of the expertise that is already involved in the development of the spec. People don’t easily re-subscribe to additional mailing lists or want the additional complexity of involving another community (see e.g. this email).

  So, a good process needs to be developed to allow everyone to contribute to the spec in the best way possible without requiring duplicate work. How can we do that ?

  The forthcoming process

  At TPAC the TT-WG discussed for several hours what the next steps are in taking WebVTT through the TT-WG to recommendation status (agenda with slides). I won’t bore you with the different views – if you are keen, you can read the minutes.

  What I came away with is the following process :

  1. Fix a few more bugs in the CG until we’re happy with the feature set in the CG. This should match the feature set that we realistically expect devices to implement for a first version of the WebVTT spec.
  2. Make a FSA (Final Specification Agreement) in the CG to create a stable reference and a clean IPR position.
  3. Assuming that the TT-WG’s charter has been approved with WebVTT as a milestone, we would next bring the FSA specification into the TT-WG as FPWD (First Public Working Draft) and immediately do a Last Call which effectively freezes the feature set (this is possible because there has already been wide community review of the WebVTT spec) ; in parallel, the CG can continue to develop the next version of the WebVTT spec with new features (just like it is happening with the HTML5 and HTML5.1 specifications).
  4. Develop a test suite and address any issues in the Last Call document (of course, also fix these issues in the CG version of the spec).
  5. As per W3C process, substantive and minor changes to Last Call documents have to be reported and raised issues addressed before the spec can progress to the next level : Candidate Recommendation status.
  6. For the next step – Proposed Recommendation status – an implementation report is necessary, and thus the test suite needs to be finalized for the given feature set. The feature set may also be reduced at this stage to just the ones implemented interoperably, leaving any other features for the next version of the spec.
  7. The final step is Recommendation status, which simply requires sufficient support and endorsement by W3C members.

  The first version of the WebVTT spec naturally has a focus on captioning (and subtitling), since this has been the dominant use case that we have focused on this far and it’s the part that is the most compatibly implemented feature set of WebVTT in browsers. It’s my expectation that the next version of WebVTT will have a lot more features related to audio descriptions, chapters and metadata. Thus, this seems a good time for a first version feature freeze.

  There are still several obstacles towards progressing WebVTT as a milestone of the TT-WG. Apart from the need to get buy-in from the TT-WG, the TT-CG, and the AC (Adivisory Committee who have to approve the new charter), we’re also looking at the license of the specification document.

  The CG specification has an open license that allows creating derivative work as long as there is attribution, while the W3C document license for documents on the recommendation track does not allow the creation of derivative work unless given explicit exceptions. This is an issue that is currently being discussed in the W3C with a proposal for a CC-BY license on the Recommendation track. However, my view is that it’s probably ok to use the different document licenses : the TT-WG will work on WebVTT 1.0 and give it a W3C document license, while the CG starts working on the next WebVTT version under the open CG license. It probably actually makes sense to have a less open license on a frozen spec.

  Making the best of a complicated world

  WebVTT is now proposed as part of the recharter of the TT-WG. I have no idea how complicated the process will become to achieve a W3C WebVTT 1.0 Recommendation, but I am hoping that what is outlined above will be workable in such a way that all of us get to focus on progressing the technology.

  At TPAC I got the impression that the TT-WG is committed to progressing WebVTT to Recommendation status. I know that the TT-CG is committed to continue developing WebVTT to its full potential for all kinds of media-time aligned content with new kinds already discussed at FOMS. Let’s enable both groups to achieve their goals. As a consequence, we will allow the two formats to excel where they do : TTML as an interchange format and WebVTT as a browser rendering format.

• OpenCV 3.4.3 - GStream not called when VideoWriting

  14 décembre 2018, par taubhi

  I’d like to succeed writing a file with OpenCV encoding with GStreamer.

  Thus I’m using the code :

  VideoWriter.open("appsrc ! autovideoconvert ! omxh264enc ! matroskamux ! filesink location=test2.mkv sync=false",
  
  //cv::CAP_GSTREAMER, //set or not, I get the same problem
  
  0, (double)25, //fourcc, fps
  
  cv::Size(1024, 1024), 
  
  true);

  And my problem :

  A video file called appsrc ! autovideoconvert ! omxh264enc ! matroskamux ! filesink location=test2.mkv sync=false is created (rather than test2.mkv), and it is empty. The same problem is corrected and seems to work in the following thread, without any effect for me : Opening a GStreamer pipeline from OpenCV with VideoWriter

  I tried, without success :

  • Add quotes to the file name test2 :
    "appsrc ! autovideoconvert ! omxh264enc ! matroskamux ! filesink location=\"test2.mkv\" sync=false" neither
  • Encode with different format : .flv rather than .mkv
  • Encode with different codec : omxh265enc rather than omxh264en

  I checked :

  • That GStreamer is well compiled with OpenCV ; the CMake of the OpenCV project outputs :

    Video I/O:Video for Windows : YES
    DC1394 : NO
    FFMPEG : YES (prebuilt binaries)
    avcodec : YES (ver 57.107.100)
    avformat : YES (ver 57.83.100)
    avutil : YES (ver 55.78.100)
    swscale : YES (ver 4.8.100)
    avresample : YES (ver 3.7.0)
    GStreamer :

    base : YES (ver 1.0)

    video : YES (ver 1.0)

    app : YES (ver 1.0)

    riff : YES (ver 1.0)

    pbutils : YES (ver 1.0)

    DirectShow : YES

    Media Foundation : YES

  • That FFMpeg is installed on my computer ; for this I used VLC :

    File -> Stream -> Add a file then stream
    New destination : RTP/MPEG Transport Stream
    Profile : Video - H.264 + MP3 (MP4)
    Then no error happens ; Note : an error occured with Video - H.265 + MP3
    (MP4), but I’m using omxh264enc in my code, not 265

  I’m struggled :/ Do you have any idea ?
  Thanks a lot :)

  Have a good day,

  Thibaut

  PS - Complete OpenCV CMake output :

  Selecting Windows SDK version 10.0.17134.0 to target Windows 10.0.17763.
  
  AVX_512F is not supported by C++ compiler
  
  
  
  AVX512_SKX is not supported by C++ compiler
  
  
  
  Dispatch optimization AVX512_SKX is not available, skipped
  
  
  
  libjpeg-turbo: VERSION = 1.5.3, BUILD = opencv-3.4.3-libjpeg-turbo
  
  
  
  Looking for Mfapi.h
  
  
  
  Looking for Mfapi.h - found
  
  
  
  found Intel IPP (ICV version): 2017.0.3 [2017.0.3]
  
  
  
  at: E:/OpenCV/3.4.3/build-cuda92-gstreamer/3rdparty/ippicv/ippicv_win
  
  
  
  found Intel IPP IW sources: 2017.0.3
  
  
  
  at: E:/OpenCV/3.4.3/build-cuda92-gstreamer/3rdparty/ippicv/ippiw_win
  
  
  
  CUDA detected: 9.2
  
  
  
  CUDA NVCC target flags: -gencode;arch=compute_30,code=sm_30;-gencode;arch=compute_35,code=sm_35;-gencode;arch=compute_37,code=sm_37;-gencode;arch=compute_50,code=sm_50;-gencode;arch=compute_52,code=sm_52;-gencode;arch=compute_60,code=sm_60;-gencode;arch=compute_61,code=sm_61;-gencode;arch=compute_70,code=sm_70;-D_FORCE_INLINES
  
  
  
  Found apache ant: C:/NVPACK/apache-ant-1.8.2/bin/ant.bat (1.8.2)
  
  
  
  Could NOT find Matlab (missing: MATLAB_MEX_SCRIPT MATLAB_INCLUDE_DIRS MATLAB_ROOT_DIR MATLAB_LIBRARIES MATLAB_LIBRARY_DIRS MATLAB_MEXEXT MATLAB_ARCH MATLAB_BIN)
  
  
  
  VTK is not found. Please set -DVTK_DIR in CMake to VTK build directory, or to VTK install subdirectory with VTKConfig.cmake file
  
  
  
  Caffe: NO
  
  
  
  Protobuf: NO
  
  
  
  Glog: YES
  
  
  
  freetype2: NO
  
  
  
  harfbuzz: NO
  
  
  
  Module opencv_ovis disabled because OGRE3D was not found
  
  
  
  No preference for use of exported gflags CMake configuration set, and no hints for include/library directories provided. Defaulting to preferring an installed/exported gflags CMake configuration if available.
  
  
  
  Found installed version of gflags: E:/Git/gflags/BUILD-VS2015
  
  
  
  Detected gflags version: 2.2.1
  
  
  
  Checking SFM deps... FALSE
  
  
  
  Module opencv_sfm disabled because the following dependencies are not found: Eigen Glog/Gflags
  
  
  
  Excluding from source files list: <build>/modules/dnn/layers/layers_common.avx512_skx.cpp
  
  
  
  Tesseract: NO
  
  
  
  
  
  General configuration for OpenCV 3.4.3 =====================================
  
  
  
  Version control: unknown
  
  
  
  
  
  Extra modules:
  
  
  
  Location (extra): E:/OpenCV/3.4.3/opencv_contrib-3.4.3/modules
  
  
  
  Version control (extra): unknown
  
  
  
  
  
  Platform:
  
  
  
  Timestamp: 2018-11-07T16:57:18Z
  
  
  
  Host: Windows 10.0.17763 AMD64
  
  
  
  CMake: 3.12.0-rc2
  
  
  
  CMake generator: Visual Studio 14 2015 Win64
  
  
  
  CMake build tool: C:/Program Files (x86)/MSBuild/14.0/bin/MSBuild.exe
  
  
  
  MSVC: 1900
  
  
  
  
  
  CPU/HW features:
  
  
  
  Baseline: SSE SSE2 SSE3
  
  
  
  requested: SSE3
  
  
  
  Dispatched code generation: SSE4_1 SSE4_2 FP16 AVX AVX2
  
  
  
  requested: SSE4_1 SSE4_2 AVX FP16 AVX2 AVX512_SKX
  
  
  
  SSE4_1 (5 files): + SSSE3 SSE4_1
  
  
  
  SSE4_2 (2 files): + SSSE3 SSE4_1 POPCNT SSE4_2
  
  
  
  FP16 (2 files): + SSSE3 SSE4_1 POPCNT SSE4_2 FP16 AVX
  
  
  
  AVX (6 files): + SSSE3 SSE4_1 POPCNT SSE4_2 AVX
  
  
  
  AVX2 (11 files): + SSSE3 SSE4_1 POPCNT SSE4_2 FP16 FMA3 AVX AVX2
  
  
  
  
  
  C/C++:
  
  
  
  Built as dynamic libs?: YES
  
  
  
  C++11: YES
  
  
  
  C++ Compiler: C:/Program Files (x86)/Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0/VC/bin/x86_amd64/cl.exe (ver 19.0.24215.1)
  
  
  
  C++ flags (Release): /DWIN32 /D_WINDOWS /W4 /GR /D _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE /D _CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE /D _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS /Gy /bigobj /Oi /EHa /wd4127 /wd4251 /wd4324 /wd4275 /wd4512 /wd4589 /MP16 /MD /O2 /Ob2 /DNDEBUG
  
  
  
  C++ flags (Debug): /DWIN32 /D_WINDOWS /W4 /GR /D _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE /D _CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE /D _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS /Gy /bigobj /Oi /EHa /wd4127 /wd4251 /wd4324 /wd4275 /wd4512 /wd4589 /MP16 /MDd /Zi /Ob0 /Od /RTC1
  
  
  
  C Compiler: C:/Program Files (x86)/Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0/VC/bin/x86_amd64/cl.exe
  
  
  
  C flags (Release): /DWIN32 /D_WINDOWS /W3 /D _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE /D _CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE /D _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS /Gy /bigobj /Oi /MP16 /MD /O2 /Ob2 /DNDEBUG
  
  
  
  C flags (Debug): /DWIN32 /D_WINDOWS /W3 /D _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE /D _CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE /D _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS /Gy /bigobj /Oi /MP16 /MDd /Zi /Ob0 /Od /RTC1
  
  
  
  Linker flags (Release): /machine:x64 /INCREMENTAL:NO
  
  
  
  Linker flags (Debug): /machine:x64 /debug /INCREMENTAL
  
  
  
  ccache: NO
  
  
  
  Precompiled headers: YES
  
  
  
  Extra dependencies: cudart.lib nppc.lib nppial.lib nppicc.lib nppicom.lib nppidei.lib nppif.lib nppig.lib nppim.lib nppist.lib nppisu.lib nppitc.lib npps.lib cublas.lib cufft.lib -LIBPATH:C:/Program Files/NVIDIA GPU Computing Toolkit/CUDA/v9.2/lib/x64
  
  
  
  3rdparty dependencies:
  
  
  
  
  
  OpenCV modules:
  
  
  
  To be built: aruco bgsegm bioinspired calib3d ccalib core cudaarithm cudabgsegm cudacodec cudafeatures2d cudafilters cudaimgproc cudalegacy cudaobjdetect cudaoptflow cudastereo cudawarping cudev datasets dnn dnn_objdetect dpm face features2d flann fuzzy hfs highgui img_hash imgcodecs imgproc java java_bindings_generator line_descriptor ml objdetect optflow phase_unwrapping photo plot python_bindings_generator reg rgbd saliency shape stereo stitching structured_light superres surface_matching text tracking ts video videoio videostab xfeatures2d ximgproc xobjdetect xphoto
  
  
  
  Disabled: js world
  
  
  
  Disabled by dependency: -
  
  
  
  Unavailable: cnn_3dobj cvv freetype hdf matlab ovis python2 python3 sfm viz
  
  
  
  Applications: tests perf_tests apps
  
  
  
  Documentation: NO
  
  
  
  Non-free algorithms: NO
  
  
  
  
  
  Windows RT support: NO
  
  
  
  
  
  GUI:
  
  
  
  Win32 UI: YES
  
  
  
  VTK support: NO
  
  
  
  
  
  Media I/O:
  
  
  
  ZLib: build (ver 1.2.11)
  
  
  
  JPEG: build-libjpeg-turbo (ver 1.5.3-62)
  
  
  
  WEBP: build (ver encoder: 0x020e)
  
  
  
  PNG: build (ver 1.6.34)
  
  
  
  TIFF: build (ver 42 - 4.0.9)
  
  
  
  JPEG 2000: build (ver 1.900.1)
  
  
  
  OpenEXR: build (ver 1.7.1)
  
  
  
  HDR: YES
  
  
  
  SUNRASTER: YES
  
  
  
  PXM: YES
  
  
  
  
  
  Video I/O:
  
  
  
  Video for Windows: YES
  
  
  
  DC1394: NO
  
  
  
  FFMPEG: YES (prebuilt binaries)
  
  
  
  avcodec: YES (ver 57.107.100)
  
  
  
  avformat: YES (ver 57.83.100)
  
  
  
  avutil: YES (ver 55.78.100)
  
  
  
  swscale: YES (ver 4.8.100)
  
  
  
  avresample: YES (ver 3.7.0)
  
  
  
  GStreamer:
  
  
  
  base: YES (ver 1.0)
  
  
  
  video: YES (ver 1.0)
  
  
  
  app: YES (ver 1.0)
  
  
  
  riff: YES (ver 1.0)
  
  
  
  pbutils: YES (ver 1.0)
  
  
  
  DirectShow: YES
  
  
  
  Media Foundation: YES
  
  
  
  
  
  Parallel framework: Concurrency
  
  
  
  
  
  Trace: YES (with Intel ITT)
  
  
  
  
  
  Other third-party libraries:
  
  
  
  Intel IPP: 2017.0.3 [2017.0.3]
  
  
  
  at: E:/OpenCV/3.4.3/build-cuda92-gstreamer/3rdparty/ippicv/ippicv_win
  
  
  
  Intel IPP IW: sources (2017.0.3)
  
  
  
  at: E:/OpenCV/3.4.3/build-cuda92-gstreamer/3rdparty/ippicv/ippiw_win
  
  
  
  Custom HAL: NO
  
  
  
  Protobuf: build (3.5.1)
  
  
  
  
  
  NVIDIA CUDA: YES (ver 9.2, CUFFT CUBLAS NVCUVID)
  
  
  
  NVIDIA GPU arch: 30 35 37 50 52 60 61 70
  
  
  
  NVIDIA PTX archs:
  
  
  
  
  
  OpenCL: YES (no extra features)
  
  
  
  Include path: E:/OpenCV/3.4.3/opencv-3.4.3/3rdparty/include/opencl/1.2
  
  
  
  Link libraries: Dynamic load
  
  
  
  
  
  Python (for build): C:/ProgramData/Miniconda3/python.exe
  
  
  
  
  
  Java:
  
  
  
  ant: C:/NVPACK/apache-ant-1.8.2/bin/ant.bat (ver 1.8.2)
  
  
  
  JNI: C:/NVPACK/jdk1.8.0_77/include C:/NVPACK/jdk1.8.0_77/include/win32 C:/NVPACK/jdk1.8.0_77/include
  
  
  
  Java wrappers: YES
  
  
  
  Java tests: YES
  
  
  
  
  
  Matlab: NO
  
  
  
  
  
  Install to: E:/OpenCV/3.4.3/build/install
  
  
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
  
  
  
  
  
  Configuring done
  
  </build>