Replies: 1 comment
-
Thanks for reporting this issue! Actually, the Largo thumbnail is correct and the video is not displayed correctly in the annotation tool. The root issue is described here: #391 Basically, browsers display the videos correctly only if the "moov atom" of the MP4 file is placed properly. As it happens, this wasn't the case for our demo video. I have now uploaded a fixed version of the demo video. Now you will see that your annotation suddenly matches with the Largo thumbnail. If you keep an eye on these moov atoms in your own videos and fix their position if necessary (see here), everything should work as expected. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I noticed a strange thing in video labelling that I replicated with the Biigle Demo video.
See following images:
In the video page:
In the largo page:
observed the following. When I use the "experimental" frame to frame progression in the video, I see that 01:51:21 does not seem to contain a valid frame (because I just randomly clicked on the video timeline to this location and it showed me a frame where I did my annotation).
The frame progression goes when I jump frame my frame, 01:51:20, 01:51:24. Does that in your opinion cause this issue?
The impact of this offset is that I cannot effectively use Largo to perform relabeling since it does not always show the whole underlying fauna meaning that I have to always check the video to confirm.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions