[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] movenc: Add an option for hiding fragments at the end
Martin Storsjö
martin at martin.st
Sun Jun 2 22:36:15 EEST 2024
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024, Dennis Sädtler via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> Should the ftyp atom also be updated to remove brands no longer required
> for non-fragmented files?
> I'm not sure how important that is in real-world scenarios, so it might
> not be worth it to deal with some of the additional changes required
> e.g. to deal with the new ftyp possibly being a different size.
Hmm, good point, I hadn't thought about that. I'd prefer not to do that,
as it becomes a bit more of a mess to change the size of the ftyp.
If we mux a plain default mp4 with h264/aac, we produce this ftyp:
major_brand = isom : ISO Base Media file format version 1
minor_version = 512
compatible_brands
brand[0] = isom : ISO Base Media file format version 1
brand[1] = iso2 : ISO Base Media file format version 2
brand[2] = avc1 : Advanced Video Coding extensions
brand[3] = mp41 : MP4 version 1
If we add -movflags frag_keyframe, we produce this:
major_brand = isom : ISO Base Media file format version 1
minor_version = 512
compatible_brands
brand[0] = isom : ISO Base Media file format version 1
brand[1] = iso6 : ISO Base Media file format version 6
brand[2] = iso2 : ISO Base Media file format version 2
brand[3] = avc1 : Advanced Video Coding extensions
brand[4] = mp41 : MP4 version 1
This has one extra entry in compatible_brands, but it shouldn't affect the
baseline for what demuxers accept reading the file or not. However if we
add e.g. "-movflags frag_keyframe+cmaf" (or negative_cts_offsets, or
default_base_moof), we end up with something like this:
major_brand = iso6 : ISO Base Media file format version 6
minor_version = 512
compatible_brands
brand[0] = iso6 : ISO Base Media file format version 6
brand[1] = cmfc
brand[2] = mp41 : MP4 version 1
So if using this hybrid fragmented/non-fragmented mode, it'd be wise to
not enable any of those options.
> Since coincidentally I've implemented the exact same feature in a
> different application a couple weeks ago I'll also throw in the fun fact
> that files produced this way can be smaller than regular MP4s for long
> and/or large files.
> This is due to the lack of interleaving of A/V samples resulting in the
> file having much fewer but larger chunks, which means the moov atom -
> mainly the stco/co64 and stsc boxes - can be much smaller.
Oh, indeed, that's a good point. But on the other hand, the file ends up
containing all the leftover moof boxes in the mdat. But are you saying
that a compact moov + leftover moof, still is smaller than one large moov,
in your practical test cases?
> Also good to know that Apple thought of this as well. I had no idea
> about that, but that further justifies adopting this method for
> achieving resilient but compatible recordings in my mind.
Indeed!
Btw, the patch in this form has one minimal time gap for when the file can
end up unrecoverable; we patch the mdat size (hiding the moof boxes)
before we write the moov - if we die at that specific moment, we'd have an
unreadable file. I guess it should be possible to reorder these two calls
as well - but it makes for a slightly bigger patch.
// Martin
More information about the ffmpeg-devel
mailing list