Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (2592)

• libx265 : Use 16-bit SAR

  10 avril 2014, par Derek Buitenhuis

  libx265 : Use 16-bit SAR
  The spec says it is 16 bits.
  Signed-off-by : Derek Buitenhuis <derek.buitenhuis@gmail.com>
  

  • [DBH] libavcodec/libx265.c

• What is “interoperable TTML” ?

  19 septembre 2012, par silvia

  I’ve just tried to come to terms with the latest state of TTML, the Timed Text Markup Language.

  TTML has been specified by the W3C Timed Text Working Group and released as a RECommendation v1.0 in November 2010. Since then, several organisations have tried to adopt it as their caption file format. This includes the SMPTE, the EBU (European Broadcasting Union), and Microsoft.

  Both, Microsoft and the EBU actually looked at TTML in detail and decided that in order to make it usable for their use cases, a restriction of its functionalities is needed.

  EBU-TT

  The EBU released EBU-TT, which restricts the set of valid attributes and feature. “The EBU-TT format is intended to constrain the features provided by TTML, especially to make EBU-TT more suitable for the use with broadcast video and web video applications.” (see EBU-TT).

  In addition, EBU-specific namespaces were introduce to extend TTML with EBU-specific data types, e.g. ebuttdt:frameRateMultiplierType or ebuttdt:smpteTimingType. Similarly, a bunch of metadata elements were introduced, e.g. ebuttm:documentMetadata, ebuttm:documentEbuttVersion, or ebuttm:documentIdentifier.

  The use of namespaces as an extensibility mechanism will ascertain that EBU-TT files continue to be valid TTML files. However, any vanilla TTML parser will not know what to do with these custom extensions and will drop them on the floor.

  Simple Delivery Profile

  With the intention to make TTML ready for “internet delivery of Captions originated in the United States”, Microsoft proposed a “Simple Delivery Profile for Closed Captions (US)” (see Simple Profile). The Simple Profile is also a restriction of TTML.

  Unfortunately, the Microsoft profile is not the same as the EBU-TT profile : for example, it contains the “set” element, which is not conformant in EBU-TT. Similarly, the supported style features are different, e.g. Simple Profile supports “display-region”, while EBU-TT does not. On the other hand, EBU-TT supports monospace, sans-serif and serif fonts, while the Simple profile does not.

  Thus files created for the Simple Delivery Profile will not work on players that expect EBU-TT and the reverse.

  Fortunately, the Simple Delivery Profile does not introduce any new namespaces and new features, so at least it is an explicit subpart of TTML and not both a restriction and extension like EBU-TT.

  SMPTE-TT

  SMPTE also created a version of the TTML standard called SMPTE-TT. SMPTE did not decide on a subset of TTML for their purposes – it was simply adopted as a complete set. “This Standard provides a framework for timed text to be supported for content delivered via broadband means,…” (see SMPTE-TT).

  However, SMPTE extended TTML in SMPTE-TT with an ability to store a binary blob with captions in another format. This allows using SMPTE-TT as a transport format for any caption format and is deemed to help with “backwards compatibility”.

  Now, instead of specifying a profile, SMPTE decided to define how to convert CEA-608 captions to SMPTE-TT. Even if it’s not called a “profile”, that’s actually what it is. It even has its own namespace : “m608 :”.

  Conclusion

  With all these different versions of TTML, I ask myself what a video player that claims support for TTML will do to get something working. The only chance it has is to implement all the extensions defined in all the different profiles. I pity the player that has to deal with a SMPTE-TT file that has a binary blob in it and is expected to be able to decode this.

  Now, what is a caption author supposed to do when creating TTML ? They obviously cannot expect all players to be able to play back all TTML versions. Should they create different files depending on what platform they are targeting, i.e. a EBU-TT version, a SMPTE-TT version, a vanilla TTML version, and a Simple Delivery Profile version ? Should they by throwing all the features of all the versions into one TTML file and hope that the players will pick out the right things that they require and drop the rest on the floor ?

  Maybe the best way to progress would be to make a list of the “safe” features : those features that every TTML profile supports. That may be the best way to get an “interoperable TTML” file. Here’s me hoping that this minimal set of features doesn’t just end up being the usual (starttime, endtime, text) triple.

  UPDATE :

  I just found out that UltraViolet have their own profile of SMPTE-TT called CFF-TT (see UltraViolet FAQ and spec). They are making some SMPTE-TT fields optional, but introduce a new @forcedDisplayMode attribute under their own namespace “cff :”.

• Making Sure The PNG Gets There

  14 juin 2013, par Multimedia Mike — General

  Rewind to 1999. I was developing an HTTP-based remote management interface for an embedded device. The device sat on an ethernet LAN and you could point a web browser at it. The pitch was to transmit an image of the device’s touch screen and the user could click on the picture to interact with the device. So we needed an image format. If you were computing at the time, you know that the web was insufferably limited back then. Our choice basically came down to GIF and JPEG. Being the office’s annoying free software zealot, I was championing a little known up and coming format named PNG.

  So the challenge was to create our own PNG encoder (incorporating a library like libpng wasn’t an option for this platform). I seem to remember being annoyed at having to implement an integrity check (CRC) for the PNG encoder. It’s part of the PNG spec, after all. It just seemed so redundant. At the time, I reasoned that there were 5 layers of integrity validation in play.

  I don’t know why, but I was reflecting on this episode recently and decided to revisit it. Here are all the encapsulation layers of a PNG file when flung over an ethernet network :

  
  
  

  So there are up to 5 encapsulations for the data in this situation. At the innermost level is the image data which is compressed with the zlib DEFLATE method. At first, I thought that this also had a CRC or checksum. However, in researching this post, I couldn’t find any evidence of such an integrity check. Further, I don’t think we bothered to compress the PNG data in this project long ago. It was a small image, monochrome, and transferring via LAN, so the encoder could get away with signaling uncompressed data.

  The graphical data gets wrapped up in a PNG chunk and all PNG chunks have a CRC. To transmit via the network, it goes into a TCP frame, which also has a checksum. That goes into an IP packet. I previously believed that this represented another integrity check. While an IP frame does have a checksum, the checksum only covers the IP header and not the payload. So that doesn’t really count towards this goal.

  Finally, the data gets encapsulated into an ethernet frame which has — you guessed it — a CRC.

  I see that other link layer protocols like PPP and wireless ethernet (802.11) also feature frame CRCs. So I guess what I’m saying is that, if you transfer a PNG file over the network, you can be confident that the data will be free of any errors.