[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: integrating AVS decoding into MPlayer

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Sat Jul 15 13:07:45 CEST 2006

Rich Felker wrote:
> [...]
>> 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?

I don't decide, SMPTE, ISO decide (or not). They just precise that it is
standardized by wrinting a paper.

I just find weird, that you strictly follow ISO C standard but not want
to realize that SMPTE, ISO, ITU papers are THE multimedia standards.
Doing something non standard is utter ugly.

>> 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.

It is not an idea. It is just a postulate that says, it is not defined
then it is non standard.

>> 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.

Not a at all. It will be standardized for NUT and only NUT, since you
are  decision power over it. Create a decision group (being one
consisting of many open source mutlimedia developpers in different
projects) if you want fair enough power on AVI.

>> 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.

P2P is teh suck :)

AFAIK decent video editing systems are used mainly by industry and
therefore development is focused on their need. AVID now supports MXF.

>> 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.

The other attitude produced DV in AVI crap, Vorbis in another container
mess, fourcc collisions, FMP4 nonsense. H264 NAL reformating shit, MP3
frame wraping shit, etc...

IMHO If a container wants to support a codec, it shall standardize it,
and an application shall not just decide a "fourcc" and just cook
something in his corner.

> 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.

Well, ISO does not seem to think that ISOM sucks, neither Mike, nor me.

Well, soon they can use NUT as it will standardize every
video/audio/subtitles/timecode ;)

Well I could persist and say that using another container is just stupid
since a decent player will play it anyway.

> 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. :)))

Of course and I hope NUT will be the "reference" container in a few years.

Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
SMARTJOG S.A.                                    http://www.smartjog.com
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
Phone: +33 1 49966312

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list