wolfgangw / backports

Deep inspection of digital cinema packages
27 stars 12 forks source link

Aspect Ratio isn't matched if optional is used #113

Open brucifer-isp opened 1 month ago

brucifer-isp commented 1 month ago

If using "F-133" for Aspect Ratio dcp_inspect won't match it as Aspect Ratio. Only one character F will match:

"FilmTitle" of "FilmTitle_SHR-1_F-190_EN-XX_INT-TD_51_2K_NULL_20240609_XXX_SMPTE_OV" does not match strict form Hint: CPL a8f1ea1f-2f4a-4612-b1b0-b681a25104da: Naming convention: Part film_title "FilmTitle" contains lowercase letters Hint: CPL a8f1ea1f-2f4a-4612-b1b0-b681a25104da: Naming convention: ContentTitleText "FilmTitle_SHR-1_F-190_EN-XX_INT-TD_51_2K_NULL_20240609_XXX_SMPTE_OV" has more parts than expected (matching {:studio=>"NULL", :facility=>"XXX", :film_title=>"FilmTitle", :content_kind=>"SHR-1", :language=>"EN-XX", :territory_rating=>"INT-TD", :audio_type=>"51", :resolution=>"2K", :date=>"20240609", :package_type=>"OV"}, missing {:aspect_ratio=>false}) Hint: CPL a8f1ea1f-2f4a-4612-b1b0-b681a25104da: Naming convention: 10 parts matching: studio:"NULL" facility:"XXX" film_title:"FilmTitle" content_kind:"SHR-1" language:"EN-XX" territory_rating:"INT-TD" audio_type:"51" resolution:"2K" date:"20240609" package_type:"OV"

After removing the Aspect Ratio optional info, im getting a Hint that "has more parts than expected" yet all fields are filled: "FilmTitle_SHR-1_F_EN-XX_INT-TD_51_2K_NULL_20240609_XXX_SMPTE_OV" has more parts than expected (matching {:studio=>"NULL", :facility=>"XXX", :film_title=>"FilmTitle", :content_kind=>"SHR-1", :aspect_ratio=>"F", :language=>"EN-XX", :territory_rating=>"INT-TD", :audio_type=>"51", :resolution=>"2K", :date=>"20240609", :package_type=>"OV"}, missing {})

thanks brucifer

wolfgangw commented 3 weeks ago

Thanks for the feedback.

For the time being (since Dec 18th 2023) the woefully out-of-date v3 naming checks have been removed from dcp_inspect. What you're seeing are mismatched v3 checks vs a proper v9 ContentTitleText. I'm supposed to put in a better way. Alas, I haven't gotten around to it, yet.

I'd suggest to update your version of dcp_inspect, there are a couple of improvements. The version used in your report would be pre-v1.2023.12.18.