Fri Apr 28 22:02:47 CEST 2006
Oded Shimon <ods15 at ods15.dyndns.org> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:30:52PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Steve Lhomme <steve.lhomme at free.fr> writes:
>> > And I wouldn't compare containers as they have different designs,
>> > goals, good sides and bad sides. For example in that list only AVI
>> > and matroska have seek entry (optional in matroska as most of it)
>> > and can do chapters (theoretical in AVI).
>> What we are saying is that we have tried and failed to find *any* good
>> sides of matroska. It's nothing personal, we just don't like bloat.
> To be fair, I actually consider mkv to be the best container after NUT, I
> even at times considered why I'm working at NUT at all since mkv exists.
> The advantages it has is, free (think asf), low overhead, and at least
> sane (as opposed to ogg/mp4/many others). The only big disadvantages it
> has (IMO) is the optional lacing which destory pts for every frame,
> supporting more than one stream with non-intra-only frames, and ofcourse
It's the complexity I don't like. Apart from that there isn't much
wrong with the feature list, except that it is arguably too long. An
all-in-one solution isn't always the best.
mru at inprovide.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel