Fri Apr 28 22:12:41 CEST 2006
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:02:47PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> 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
> > complexity...
> 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.
NUT is an all-in-one solution too. We just managed to take the time to
get the "all" part right and make one system that works for all cases,
rather than several options that break various cases... (lacing, block
More information about the ffmpeg-devel