[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: integrating AVS decoding into MPlayer
Sat Jul 15 05:36:31 CEST 2006
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 05:18:21AM +0200, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:24:47PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >>>> There is no avi fourcc defined for avs, so it can't be done.
> >>> Then define one. This is what we've always done in the past.
> >> And it's about time an end was put to that habit.
> > Disagree strongly. Any (sane) codec can be stored in any (sane)
> > container. Some containers require fourcc. Therefore every codec needs
> > a fourcc.
> I strongly disagree. There are codecs which won't ever be contained into
> AVI unless something (ffmpeg, mencoder) tries to, therefore no need for
> fourcc at all.
Why should you arbitrarily decide what formats are allowed to be used
together and which ones are not?
> Some that comes in mind are Dolby-E and DNxHD which will
> be contained into MXF and no other (maybe isom in the future though). If
The idea that a codec should be in one container and no other is utter
nonsense. Especially MXF which is an abomination.
> you do that, you just invent something non standardized. Now if NUT
> specify a fourcc for those codecs, it will become standardized, but only
> for NUT.
And for AVI and anything else that uses fourccs.
> Industry WILL use MXF (AVID, FCP, every broadcast server) and essence
> wrapping is standardized. They have a different point of view and AVI is
> not for them.
I really couldn't care less what "the industry" does since the
industry does not release on p2p. :)
Joking aside, I truely am uninterested in what the "broadcast
industry" does. The interesting target audience is people doing
innovative streaming, content delivery, video editing, amateur
filmmaking, and sharing over the internet.
> IMHO people did something stupid trying to wrap every codec in every
> container. Sorenson 3 is contained in MOV until further notice, same for
> QDM2. You should not wrap them into AVI until it is standardized.
Nonsense. This proprietary "you should use our shitty container if you
want to use our codec" attitude is what MUST GO! It's the problem with
Xiph as well.
There is only one container that doesn't suck... The rest suck to
varying degrees from minor to extreme. But still people should be able
to choose their container based on their own criteria, not forced to
use a container that might or might not meet their needs because of
what codec they want to use.
I haven't even mentioned yet the problem that arises when both the
audio codec and video codec want you to use a specific container and
they don't agree, or when the container required by the audio format
(*cough* ogg/vorbis) does not support any non-shit video codec.
> > Our proposal is that people adopt the fourcc system and use it in all
> > formats. This has nothing to do with using nasty MS data structures
> > (BITMAPINFOHEADER, etc.), just using a naming system that's already
> > human-readable, computer-efficient, and just plain sane.
> That is the easiest solution and IMHO the best one. Adopting a
> "standardized" fourcc table for NUT and maintaining it in the specs is a
> good choice, choosing AVI ones or MOV ones by default if fourcc exists.
> You need to pick MOV ones for some codecs of course.
Finally something we agree on. :)))
More information about the ffmpeg-devel