FITS 0.8.10 MediaInfo Video Resolution Output Bug?

32 views
Skip to first unread message

WGBH Archives

unread,
Oct 23, 2015, 3:27:38 PM10/23/15
to fits-users
Hello,
I'm having a small issue when running FITS on some video files and exporting to XML.  I was wondering if anyone else was having a similar issues?

<video>
      <location toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">/*****/GP020002.mov</location>
      <mimeType toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">video/mp4</mimeType>
      <format toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">QuickTime</format>
      <duration toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">295929</duration>
      <bitRate toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">146882404</bitRate>
      <dateCreated toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">UTC 2013-05-01 15:39:23</dateCreated>
      <dateModified toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">UTC 2013-05-01 15:51:46</dateModified>
      <track type="video" id="1" toolname="MediaInfo" toolversion="0.7.75" status="SINGLE_RESULT">
        <videoDataEncoding>AVdn</videoDataEncoding>
        <codecId>AVdn</codecId>
        <compression>Unknown</compression>
        <byteOrder>Unknown</byteOrder>
        <bitDepth>8 bits</bitDepth>
        <bitRate>145344430</bitRate>
        <bitRateMode>Constant</bitRateMode>
        <duration>295929</duration>
        <trackSize>5376458752</trackSize>
        <width>1 920 pixels</width>
        <height>1 080 pixels</height>
        <frameRate>29.970</frameRate>
        <frameRateMode>Constant</frameRateMode>
        <frameCount>8869</frameCount>
        <aspectRatio>16:9</aspectRatio>
        <scanningFormat>Progressive</scanningFormat>
        <chromaSubsampling>4:2:2</chromaSubsampling>
        <colorspace>YUV</colorspace>

I'm getting a space inside the width and height that should not be there.  It should just be 1920 and 1080.  Small issue, but is anyone having this problem yet?  
I appreciate any help or advice on how to correct this.
Thank you,
Mike Muraszko
WGBH Educational Foundation
GP020002.mov.fits.xml

David Birtwell

unread,
Oct 26, 2015, 1:54:30 PM10/26/15
to fits-users
Mike:

This is the first release of FITS with Video support using the mediaInfo tool which just went up on the FITS web site last week. In this release, the FITS default output for video flle metadata generation is not normalized. This should fixed in the next official release of FITS which will be done soon.

That being said, if you run FITS to generate standard output using the -x command line parameter, FITS should generate output in an EBUCore format which can be validated against the ebucore_20140318.xsd schema. That output should be normalized. If it is not, please let us know.

As a side note, we are in the process of updating the FITS tool web site and will be sending out a complete release note shortly.

Thanks,

Dave B.
Harvard University
Library Technology Services

WGBH Archives

unread,
Oct 29, 2015, 10:39:52 AM10/29/15
to fits-users
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the reply!  That makes sense, I'll look forward to the next official release.  I just tried the EBUCore output and you're right, that output is normalized so we can always use that if we need to.
Thank you very much,
-Mike

Kevin Carter

unread,
Nov 9, 2015, 3:28:33 PM11/9/15
to fits-users
Gone from XML output are exiftool-generated "imageWidth" and "imageHeight."  Instead, visual dimensions are now expressed at the TRACK level, and presumably, finding the largest "width" and "height" of a single track will represent the "movie" dimensions?  Ugh-ly.

Pointing to ebucore seems worse than just putting back the elements from exiftool; can we have it back, please?

Thanks.

WGBH Archives

unread,
Dec 10, 2015, 7:24:19 AM12/10/15
to fits-users
Just a following up on this issue, I've updated to FITS 0.9.0 and the issue I was having is corrected.  Thank you.
-Mike


On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:54:30 PM UTC-4, David Birtwell wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages