<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - VA-API implementation reports support for unsupported endpoints" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108036#c3">Comment # 3</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - VA-API implementation reports support for unsupported endpoints" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108036">bug 108036</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:notkurufu@cock.li" title="Kurt Kartaltepe <notkurufu@cock.li>"> Kurt Kartaltepe</a> <pre> > The hardware supports some high profile features (like CABAC), but > unfortunately not all of them (like B-frames or MBAFF). > > Now the profile selects what the decoder needs to be able to do to handle a > certain video, but doesn't tells you anything about the encoder except for > selecting the encoding of the headers. > > We should support the encoding of the headers, so if an application selects > high profile it actually gets better compression because of CABAC support. > > But if the application also tries to use B-frames it will get an invalid > stream. Yes, the issue is that valid settings produce a stream that is invalid. Personally I would be more than ok if the resultant stream on high was within constrained baseline specs as long as it returned a valid stream. Because hardware encoders are such black boxes I care very little for the settings i cannot control (such as exact compression techniques) and expect the ones i can to work.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>