Two new P-frames in part 11!After tonight's fixing marathon, I decided to go back over my part 11 attempt and I found the two extra P-frames that I was missing before. I've attached the fixed part 11 below. If the mmb / ffmpeg experts could give it a look, I'd be most grateful.I hope everyone didn't mind me posting lots of results - I've just written some custom tools in C++ that help me find the problems, calculate timestamps and so on. It's made it a lot quicker to fix up the TS problems and find P-frames hiding in the corruption. I'm going to turn in for the night now, so it'll give you all a chance to have a look at all the fixed up things and see what you can make from them!
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/28/2014 03:54 amBest to make it explicit with the license Lar suggested earlier: "can we have it licensed under CC-BY-SA version 4, please" and "WITHOUT the NC or ND clauses attached, please" — and for the reasons he articulated so well.I think I would like to see the original video licensed CC-BY-SA. The reason is that this would allow Wikipedia to use the final video for educational purposes. Wikimedia has sample letters to use for requesting a free license for content. I have used this to successfully request CC licenses from SpaceX in the past, though they were a smaller company then.See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates
Best to make it explicit with the license Lar suggested earlier: "can we have it licensed under CC-BY-SA version 4, please" and "WITHOUT the NC or ND clauses attached, please" — and for the reasons he articulated so well.
Focus should continue to be on the fine work in fixing the video. I'll ensure the rest, but the non official response I got first of all today was "LOL! You're doing us a favor!" <---seriously!
Thanks again for all the hard work. Even the final edit on your versions will be much faster than starting from raw... So your work is much appreciated anyways.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/28/2014 01:13 amFocus should continue to be on the fine work in fixing the video. I'll ensure the rest, but the non official response I got first of all today was "LOL! You're doing us a favor!" <---seriously! I wonder if Elon will mention this at the new Dragon reveal Thursday night? Or perhaps they'll show the latest version to the crowd whilst they're waiting for the main event of the evening to start?
Hi everyone,One p-frame looks very strange, with "too intense" colors, could anyone come with an explanation and maybe a solution to this?It's frame 227 / part 12-19mmb: 0:0:-1,30:1:10681,10:3:-1,31:3:19630
One p-frame looks very strange, with "too intense" colors, could anyone come with an explanation and maybe a solution to this?
my CC continuity check failed at pos: 0x2F98C (CC is = C in your file but should be a 4)and finally there are 56 times where a TS header that starts with 4703e8 continues not with 1X but something else. This is ok for the last TS-packet of a frame when the frame data does not fill the 184 byte completely. I attached a file where all those 56 parts are listed and marked the correct tails. all the other packets should be 4703e81x.I hope this helps to improve your tools further.
We are slowly adding frames to the movie, so I put an updated version. Big thanks in particular to the anonymous people who cleaned part 248!97 frames (some of them only very partially recovered) out of ~270 were used.
Quote from: SwissCheese on 05/27/2014 12:36 amWe are slowly adding frames to the movie, so I put an updated version. Big thanks in particular to the anonymous people who cleaned part 248!97 frames (some of them only very partially recovered) out of ~270 were used.So, based on where we are right this moment, is this still a very good representation of where the progress currently is? There's a very good reason for asking
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/28/2014 05:01 pmQuote from: SwissCheese on 05/27/2014 12:36 amWe are slowly adding frames to the movie, so I put an updated version. Big thanks in particular to the anonymous people who cleaned part 248!97 frames (some of them only very partially recovered) out of ~270 were used.So, based on where we are right this moment, is this still a very good representation of where the progress currently is? There's a very good reason for asking Yes, I think that is still a good representation of our progress to date. There have been some minor improvements since then, but SwissCheese's video has more polish. I posted my most recent auto-build for comparison.
PS Sorry Princess. The forum simply can't handle those mega long strings, so I've had to cut them....but I'm sure people can just merge them when using (they are otherwise intact).
One p-frame looks very strange, with "too intense" colors, could anyone come with an explanation and maybe a solution to this?It's frame 227 / part 12-19mmb: 0:0:-1,30:1:10681,10:3:-1,31:3:19630
Quote from: SwissCheese on 05/28/2014 02:24 pmOne p-frame looks very strange, with "too intense" colors, could anyone come with an explanation and maybe a solution to this?It's frame 227 / part 12-19mmb: 0:0:-1,30:1:10681,10:3:-1,31:3:19630I checked the VOP quants in this section and that frame does look like a bit of an outlier. Here are the VOP quants in fixed_edit8_part_209.ts:1 001002 000103 000014 000015 000106 000107 000108 000019 0000110 0000011 0000112 0000113 0000114 0000115 0000116 0000117 0000118 0000119 0011120 00001My first guess is that the correct VOP quant is 00001, and there's a double flip, but other values are possible. I attach a ts file where that VOP quant is set to 00001. It's at offset x43A9B so other values can be tried. I can't check it myself as I'm yet to establish a proper setup for multiframe work. Let me know how it looks.