Re: [Cellar] "raw" data from scanner

Jerome Martinez <jerome@mediaarea.net> Thu, 26 April 2018 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jerome@mediaarea.net>
X-Original-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD80A127058 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K3w9trGY1N5P for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 5.mo177.mail-out.ovh.net (5.mo177.mail-out.ovh.net [46.105.39.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DFEA1204DA for <cellar@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from player157.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.109.120.50]) by mo177.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B91AF4B9 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:26:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.2.120] (p5DDB40F7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.219.64.247]) (Authenticated sender: jerome@mediaarea.net) by player157.ha.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB0C150009E for <cellar@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:26:43 +0200 (CEST)
To: cellar@ietf.org
References: <r470Ps-10116i-0B69148E610F42BD9195F3A3C64EC2A8@Castor.local>
From: Jerome Martinez <jerome@mediaarea.net>
Message-ID: <169045a9-6108-1fca-ddb0-cf4078888470@mediaarea.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:26:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <r470Ps-10116i-0B69148E610F42BD9195F3A3C64EC2A8@Castor.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 9165951144809926801
X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK
X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 50
X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtgedrledvgdduudefucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfdpvefjgfevmfevgfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucgoteefjeefqddtgeculdehtddm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/JIkAZOWlI67QwPFN1HELOKfdJhE>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] "raw" data from scanner
X-BeenThere: cellar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cellar/>
List-Post: <mailto:cellar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:26:51 -0000

On 26/04/2018 09:20, Reto Kromer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the majority of the current film scanners are Bayer-based, and
> there are around many proprietary "raw" formats. There is also
> GoPro's CineForm RAW, which some scanners do use, and very
> recently Apple has launched ProRes RAW, which is designed for
> capturing and post-production.
>
> I'm still dreaming of having the possibility to store in a open
> way the "raw" video data info Matroska/FFV1, instead of personal
> hacks. Sorry for boring you with this since three years!

I suggested a patch:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cellar/current/msg01398.html
https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/pull/100

Beside time (e.g. with CineForm RAW, issue is to have a usable decoder 
for such stream, it takes time to adapt the CineForm RAW decoder source 
code to something usable for FFV1 encoder input), I am currently blocked 
by the lack of samples from different sources for demonstrating the 
feasibility and performance of the proposed patch.