[x265] [PATCH] Backed out changeset: fef63866bb60

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:49 AM Vittorio Giovara <
vittorio.giovara at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:41 AM Pradeep Ramachandran <
> pradeep at multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:21 PM Vittorio Giovara <
>> vittorio.giovara at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:11 PM Aruna Matheswaran <
>>> aruna at multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the pointers, Vittorio. CTA-861.3-A specification states
>>>> that if both MaxCLL and MaxFALL are signaled as 0, the rendering device
>>>> shall interpret it as unknown.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your response, I am aware of this and it logically makes
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> With this reference, x265 by default is signaling 0 for both MaxCLL and
>>>> MaxFALL with the assumption that any logical implementation of the
>>>> specification would ignore them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This part I don't understand. The possibility of avoiding sending this
>>> SEI is just one if clause, what is the purpose of encoding an empty
>>> message? Is it a requirement for some other specification? Does it serve a
>>> private x265 use? Nothing wrong in either, but please have it documented
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>> The problem we see now is that your renderer interprets 0 content light
>>>> levels as valid values and displays too dark or too bright pixels. Whereas
>>>> a few other renderers don't accept NULL entries for content light levels
>>>> and expect 0 content light level as a signal to disable/ignore their usage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately though it is not *my* renderer, but it's the renderer of
>>> some tvs and devices in the wild, over which I have no control.
>>>
>>> Will introducing *an additional param flag to enable signaling of only
>>>> mastering display metadata *fix your problem? With this, renderers
>>>> which don't accept NULL content light level entries shall use the default 0
>>>> signaling. On the other hand, renderers which treat 0 content light level
>>>> as valid entries shall disable signaling them via the additional flag.
>>>> Please share your thoughts on this suggestion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This would kind of work but I do not believe it's a proper solution. At
>>> most, the default behavior should be the one of least expected surprise: if
>>> message is empty just don't encode it. Then if a sensible usecase really
>>> exists, there should be an option to force encode light level even if
>>> empty. However it's still unclear why you would need to that in the first
>>> place, as trusting decoders to do the right thing is not very efficient and
>>> leads to a catch-a-mole experience.
>>>
>>
>> We have other users who've come back to us with the report that that
>> unless maxCLL and maxFALL  are signalled as (0,0), their decoder/renderer
>> is decoding this as an invalid HDR10 stream. (My email earlier about
>> non-HDR10 streams was incorrect; please ignore that.) Your use case is that
>> your decoder interprets (0,0) as a valid value and renders the pixels
>> incorrectly! As this SEI message is pass-through for the encoder, we just
>> went back to the standard and did what we thought was the right
>> interpretation of the standard, and that was to signal *all* HDR10 params
>> when *any* HDR10 param was non-zero. And we had another request from a user
>> asking for having the ability to always signal HDR10 SEIs even when they
>> were zero and that is why we added the --hdr option. (In hind-sight, we
>> should've called this --hdr10, but we will live with it for now.) Now, your
>> use-case is that you want a sub-set of the HDR10 SEIs to be signaled and
>> not the others. Maybe adding separate flags for force-signalling them
>> separately is the best option here, but so many flags isn't a good thing!
>>
>
> A couple of points here:
> - it's not "my decoder", but decoders installed on *some* tvs and *some*
> devices. I have no control over those devices and I can't even gather data
> about which devices these are
> - I am not using the --hdr(10) option from the command line interface,
> this all comes from the API. While I can expect some kind of automatic when
> using the CLI, the API itself should not "surprise-encode" messages that
> weren't explicitly enabled (especially if empty
> - hdr10 is mostly a commercial term, it's not a real "standard" per se but
> a collection of specifications stitched together. There is no such thing as
> "invalid hdr10 stream" because there is no conformance to adhere to:
> decoders or renderers needs to apply whatever information is present in the
> stream, to the best of their support. Some perform better some perform worse
> - I disagree with limiting the number of "so many flags": this is a video
> encoder which is not a simple thing to begin with, so exposing more knobs
> to allow more in-tune configuration to "expert" users is actually
> appreciated (to a limit)
> - I agree --hdr should have been called --hdr10 but it's never too late to
> add/deprecate that, especially when major bumps are around ;)
> --
> Vittorio
>

ping I suppose
-- 
Vittorio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x265-devel/attachments/20190401/3eab58eb/attachment.html>