Subject: [Cellar] 360/VR videos in Matroska

From: Michael Bradshaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:40:10 -0700

Matroska currently doesn't have a way to specify projection information for
360/VR videos. Google's Spherical Video V2 RFC draft was just updated a few
days ago to include some new elements specifying projection and viewer pose
information[1].

These proposed elements haven't made their way over to the WebM
specification (and I haven't asked the WebM team if they intend to
incorporate them), but I think it raises a good question about Matroska
support for these kinds of things.

I don't know of any past work in specifying projection information in
Matroska. Assuming there hasn't been any, is there interest in adding it
(I'm assuming the answer is still yes, from those I asked in Berlin)? Do
the elements from the Spherical Video V2 RFC draft look like good
candidates?

(For the record, I'm just breaking the ice here and getting the
conversation started; this isn't a proposal to adopt the new elements just
quite yet)

[1]:
https://github.com/google/spatial-media/blob/master/docs/spherical-video-v2-rfc.md#webm-matroska

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:56:08 +0200

Le 30/08/2016 à 18:40, Michael Bradshaw a écrit :
> Matroska currently doesn't have a way to specify projection 
> information for 360/VR videos. Google's Spherical Video V2 RFC draft 
> was just updated a few days ago to include some new elements 
> specifying projection and viewer pose information[1].
>
> incorporate them), but I think it raises a good question about 
> Matroska support for these kinds of things.
>
> Matroska. Assuming there hasn't been any, is there interest in adding 
> it (I'm assuming the answer is still yes, from those I asked in Berlin)?

Still yes on my side.

> Do the elements from the Spherical Video V2 RFC draft look like good 
> candidates?

As Google did a lot of work already and have it in production, I am 
actually in favor of adopting the elements if there is no issue (e.g. no 
conflict with Matroska specs) after some review (and after Google puts 
it in WebM specs).

> conversation started; this isn't a proposal to adopt the new elements 
> just quite yet)
>
> [1]: 
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar

---

From: "Sebastian G. <bastik>" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:54:12 +0200

> support for these kinds of things.

Whenever those elements make it into WebM, Matroska should support them
as well. I'm not sure if 360/VR will turn out to be a big thing (IMHO 3D
has not), but for interoperability Matroska should not fall behind.

Best Regards,
Sebastian

---

From: hubblec4 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:13:17 +0200

Hi all

> has not), but for interoperability Matroska should not fall behind.
I agree exactly with this.

Best Regards
Martin