LinuxTV Patchwork vdr-1.7.29 + h264 MBAFF

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Klaus Schmidinger
Date Sept. 18, 2012, 6:09 p.m.
Message ID <5058B8D4.8000108@tvdr.de>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/14511/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Klaus Schmidinger - Sept. 18, 2012, 6:09 p.m.
On 18.09.2012 19:53, VDR User wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Klaus Schmidinger
> <Klaus.Schmidinger@tvdr.de> wrote:
>>>> I would also appreciate if as many other VDR users as possible applied
>>>> this patch and tested it, so that we can be sure it works before I
>>>> release
>>>> the next developer version.
>>>
>>> The patch fails on vanilla .30, do you have other patches applied to
>>> remux.c as well?
>>
>> Sorry about that. There was an intermediate change in there that has
>> become obsolete by this latest change.
>>
>> I have attached a new version.
>
> Still the same patch, just different filename. Maybe third time is a charm? ;)

Aaahhrrrghhhh - it's one of those days again... ;-)

Here's the right one.

Klaus
ua0lnj - Sept. 19, 2012, 8:33 a.m.
This path works for me.
Fine :)


-----Original Message-----
From: vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org] On Behalf Of
Klaus Schmidinger
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:09 AM
To: vdr@linuxtv.org
Subject: Re: [vdr] vdr-1.7.29 + h264 MBAFF

On 18.09.2012 19:53, VDR User wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Klaus Schmidinger
> <Klaus.Schmidinger@tvdr.de> wrote:
>>>> I would also appreciate if as many other VDR users as possible applied
>>>> this patch and tested it, so that we can be sure it works before I
>>>> release
>>>> the next developer version.
>>>
>>> The patch fails on vanilla .30, do you have other patches applied to
>>> remux.c as well?
>>
>> Sorry about that. There was an intermediate change in there that has
>> become obsolete by this latest change.
>>
>> I have attached a new version.
>
> Still the same patch, just different filename. Maybe third time is a
charm? ;)

Aaahhrrrghhhh - it's one of those days again... ;-)

Here's the right one.

Klaus

Patch

--- remux.c	2012/03/02 10:56:49	2.64
+++ remux.c	2012/09/18 09:11:24
@@ -843,7 +843,8 @@ 
 
 int cFrameDetector::Analyze(const uchar *Data, int Length)
 {
-  int SeenPayloadStart = false;
+  bool SeenPayloadStart = false;
+  bool SeenAccessUnitDelimiter = false;
   int Processed = 0;
   newFrame = independentFrame = false;
   while (Length >= TS_SIZE) {
@@ -970,12 +971,16 @@ 
                                scanner = EMPTY_SCANNER;
                                if (synced && !SeenPayloadStart && Processed)
                                   return Processed; // flush everything before this new frame
+                               SeenAccessUnitDelimiter = true;
+                               }
+                            else if (SeenAccessUnitDelimiter && scanner == 0x00000001) { // NALU start
+                               SeenAccessUnitDelimiter = false;
                                int FrameTypeOffset = i + 1;
                                if (FrameTypeOffset >= TS_SIZE) // the byte to check is in the next TS packet
                                   i = SkipPackets(Data, Length, Processed, FrameTypeOffset);
                                newFrame = true;
-                               uchar FrameType = Data[FrameTypeOffset];
-                               independentFrame = FrameType == 0x10;
+                               uchar FrameType = Data[FrameTypeOffset] & 0x1F;
+                               independentFrame = FrameType == 0x07;
                                if (synced) {
                                   if (framesPerPayloadUnit < 0) {
                                      payloadUnitOfFrame = (payloadUnitOfFrame + 1) % -framesPerPayloadUnit;

Privacy Policy