International organisation for standardisation organisation internationale de normalisation

Contributions

Number	Session	Title	Source	Disposition

3. Summary of discussions

4. Action Points

ISO/IEC FDIS 23001-9 (SC 29 N 13941)

Part 9: Common Encryption for MPEG-2 Transport Streams

FDIS (2014-XX-XX)

14. Timed metadata metrics of Media in ISOBMFF (23001-10)

    1. Topics

       1. ISO/IEC 23001-10 Timed Metadata Metrics of Media in the ISO Base Media File Format

Specifies a storage format for commonly used, timed metadata metrics of media, such as quality related PSNR, SSIM, and others, for carriage in metadata tracks of the ISO Base Media File Format.

2. Contributions

Number	Session	Title	Source	Disposition
m32341	File Format	Editors' Input on Carriage of Timed Metadata in the ISO Base Media File Format	Shaobo Zhang,	Accepted N14129
m32252	File Format	Metadata Sanity Verification in ISOBMFF	Vinod Kumar Malamal Vadakital, Miska M. Hannuksela	Accepted N14129
m32290	File Format	Carriage of Green Metadata in the ISO Base Media File Format	P.Gendron (Thomson Video Networks), X. Ducloux (Thomson Video Networks), J. Le Feuvre (Telecom-Paristech)	Accepted N14129

3. Summary of discussions

4. Action Points

1. m32252 Metadata Sanity Verification in ISOBMFF

We think the sample group is one interesting way to attach items to samples; one wonders whether the group description could contain the metadata directly, of course. We need to be clear over which meta-data box is referenced (track, movie, file, and if there are meco/mere boxes). But, into the WD for still images (with questions).

Many questions on the integrity check. Is the integrity box supposed to be re-written by editors? Probably only by editors that understand both the metadata and the media. Are the axes (size/body, whole track vs. group members) orthogonal? Does this enable integrity over the aspect of the samples that the author cares about (e.g. if it’s EXIF maybe neither size nor the actual bytes are terribly relevant, as simple re-compression would change those but not e.g. the camera model). Do we need other verifiable ‘statements’ here (e.g. sample count, sample entry type, track duration, etc.)? We also questioned when the "sample group" should be used vs when a metadata track should be used.

(We note that meco has a bug because it's not possible to use fragment identifiers for meco items.)

We’d like to consider something like this in an amendment to the ISO BMFF (but we are not sure which one). We welcome further contributions. We place it in the WD of the still image for the time being, with a note that it ought to migrate.

2.