[x264-devel] Behaviour of Annex B encoding: bug or not?

[Alex Giladi]

Gil,
Quoting section 3 of the RFC:  "This payload specification can only be
used to carry the "naked" H.264 NAL unit stream over RTP, and not the
bitstream format discussed in Annex B of H.264". Escaping is defined
in Annex B (section B.1).
Haven't played with this (I work with plain old MPEG-2 TS), but this
is my interpretation of the specs.
Also, there is no "de-facto standard": there is only compliance or
lack of compliance.
Alex.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Gil Pedersen <gil at cmi.aau.dk> wrote:
> On 05/01/2010, at 20.49, Alex Giladi wrote:
>
>> RTP payload (at RFC 3984) uses RBSP. Maybe it's worth adding "rtp" as
>> an output option?
>> --ag
>
> Is this true? I see no mention of RBSP in the RFC. The RFC 3984 payload is based on NAL units, which according to the H.264 spec consists of a 1-byte header followed by RBSP _and_ the necessary emulation bytes. Further, as mentioned, the H.264 reference encoder seems to output RTP packets with the emulation bytes.
>
> As far as I can tell any decoder that expects raw RBSP + 1 byte header is broken and x264 should never allow this to be generated unless it can be proven that it's the de-facto standard.
>
> /Gil
>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Jason Garrett-Glaser
>> <darkshikari at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Philip Spencer
>>> <pspencer at fields.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>> First a disclaimer: I know very little about the H.264 spec, and am just
>>>> trying to resolve an interoperability issue we are having, so please bear
>>>> with me if I misstate or misunderstand something.
>>>>
>>>> In the routine x264_nal_encode (in common/common.c), the flag b_annexb
>>>> controls whether or not to add a NAL start code (00 00 00 01) to the
>>>> beginning of the packet, but does not control whether or not to do the
>>>> escaping of sequences of the form 00 00 00/1/2/3 by inserting a 03 byte into
>>>> the third position -- that escaping is ALWAYS done, even if b_annexb is not
>>>> set.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a bug, or is it meant to be that way? (I don't have access to the
>>>> text of Annex B).
>>>
>>> We didn't make it an option because we didn't know of any devices that
>>> expected non-escaped bytestreams.  All containers we knew that didn't
>>> want Annex-B startcodes still expected escaped NAL units.
>>>
>>>> It certainly breaks interoperability with several devices. In particular,
>>>> x264 cannot be used with the Ekiga softphone application to communicate with
>>>> the "LifeSize Room" brand of videoconferencing equipment: that device
>>>> expects non-Annex-B packets over RTP, and cannot handle the extra 03 byte
>>>> that is inserted. The result is that the session parameters (like stream
>>>> resolution and other such settings, which often contain multiple zero bytes
>>>> in a row) get completely garbled because of the Annex-B bytestream encoding.
>>>>
>>>> Also, if one attempts to sniff the network traffic with software such as
>>>> WireShark, it too chokes on the unexpected 03 bytes in RTP packets.
>>>>
>>>> It would seem to me that this is a bug: if Annex B bytestream encoding is
>>>> not desired, such as for an RTP packet, then the extra escape bytes should
>>>> not be inserted.
>>>>
>>>> On our system, I have applied the patch below to common.c and then
>>>> H.264 connectivity to the LifeSize Room videoconferencing equipment works
>>>> just fine.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, from a quick glance at the source code of the reference
>>>> encoder/decoder, it seems that it behaves the same way as x264: always
>>>> inserts the escape byte. Is this a bug in the reference encoder/decoder too,
>>>> or does the text of Annex B specify that ALL H.264 streams should have the
>>>> extra bytes inserted, even when bytestream encoding is not being used?
>>>>
>>>> In the latter case, then obviously the LifeSize brand videoconference units
>>>> are buggy, but since I know they interperate will over H.264 with a wide
>>>> range of units from other manufacturers there must be a lot of buggy devices
>>>> out there -- would it be worth adding an extra flag to x264 that says "do
>>>> bytestream encoding only in Annex B mode, for compatibility with
>>>> devices that cannot handle it in RTP mode"?
>>>
>>> The best solution here is probably to add another parameter to control
>>> the escaping.  b_escaped_nals or similar.  In the case of
>>> b_escaped_nals == 0, a straight memcpy would be used.
>>>
>>> Dark Shikari
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x264-devel mailing list
>>> x264-devel at videolan.org
>>> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x264-devel
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> x264-devel mailing list
>> x264-devel at videolan.org
>> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x264-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> x264-devel mailing list
> x264-devel at videolan.org
> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x264-devel
>