Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Align definition of config record with AV1 MPEG2-TS #123

Open
cconcolato opened this issue May 21, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

Align definition of config record with AV1 MPEG2-TS #123

cconcolato opened this issue May 21, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
technical If approved, it requires technical change to the specification waiting for further information not yet approved or rejected by the group, needs further input from participants

Comments

@cconcolato
Copy link
Collaborator

The current draft of the MPEG-2 TS binding spec for AV1 reuses the config record, but uses 2 of the reserved bits for HDR signaling. The ISOBMFF spec should be updated to make sure these 2 reserved bits will not be reused, and maybe to indicate that they are ignored in ISOBMFF context.

@cconcolato cconcolato added the technical If approved, it requires technical change to the specification label Jan 23, 2023
@cconcolato
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We should make sure that the behavior of encoder/decoder is clear with respect to the reserved=0 part.

  • Should an AV1-ISOBMFF encoder reusing data from an MPEG-2 TS stream reset the bits to 0? or can it leave them as is?
  • Should an AV1-ISOBMFF decoder ignore the bits, and not complain if they are not 0? Should we remove = 0?

@cconcolato
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Given that the bits in MPEG-2 are signaling HDR which can be signaled elsewhere in ISOBMFF, we probably should force the bits to be 0.

@cconcolato
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Maybe the value 0 in MPEG-2 TS should mean no indication is made, so that after editing in the MP4 space, it remains valid to put it back into TS.

@cconcolato cconcolato added the waiting for further information not yet approved or rejected by the group, needs further input from participants label Apr 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
technical If approved, it requires technical change to the specification waiting for further information not yet approved or rejected by the group, needs further input from participants
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant