[Bug 732266] vaapidecode: h264: add support for decoding SVC base layers only

[GStreamer (GNOME Bugzilla)]

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=732266

--- Comment #41 from Orestis Floros <orestisf1993 at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to sreerenj from comment #40)
> (In reply to Orestis Floros from comment #38)
> > (In reply to sreerenj from comment #35)
> > > (In reply to Orestis Floros from comment #34)
> > > > Created attachment 358103 [details] [review] [review] [review] [review]
> > > > libs: decoder: h264: decode SVC base view only
> > > > 
> > > > (In reply to sreerenj from comment #33)
> > > > > Review of attachment 358041 [details] [review] [review] [review] [review] [review]:
> > > > >
> > > > > ::: gst-libs/gst/vaapi/gstvaapidecoder_h264.c
> > > > > @@ +1793,3 @@
> > > > >
> > > > > +  if (priv->base_only && !GST_H264_IS_MVC_NALU (&pi->nalu))
> > > > > +    result = gst_h264_parse_sps (&pi->nalu, sps, FALSE);
> > > > >
> > > > > Why does it only for SVC? svc and mvc base-only mode should behave
> > > > > similarly. right?
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know how I missed it, this part is buggy and breaks MVC streams with
> > > > base-only=TRUE right now. This patch should do it.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know why they behave differently here, I made the distinction
> > > > through trial and error.
> > > 
> > > Hm, we need an explanation other than trial-and-error-fix-this.
> > 
> > I think it is related to nalparser. I'd bet that it has something to do with
> > lack of SVC support in codecparsers/gsth264parser.c. This was the change
> > that fixed the issue from:
> 
> Can you investigate for the real issue?
> 
> > (In reply to sreerenj from comment #25)
> > > This is the driver assertion.
> > > Because somehow middleware set the frame_mbs_only_flag in pic_params (which
> > > means not an interlaced content) but set the filed_pic_flag (which means
> > > frame has interlaced fields) in slice_header.
> > > Check the parsed values, could be a wrongly encoded stream.
> > 
> > I'll try to find a better explanation.
> I thought this has been fixed with your recent patches, isn't it?

I am sorry, my formatting wasn't the best. What I was saying is that I will
investigate for the real issue as you say and I mentioned that this change was
needed because it fixed the issue from comment #25. I wasn't replying to it, I
was just mentioning it.

It should be read like this:

I think it is related to nalparser. I'd bet that it has something to do with
lack of SVC support in codecparsers/gsth264parser.c. This was the change that
fixed the issue from comment #25.

I'll try to find a better explanation.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.