[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: integrating AVS decoding into MPlayer
Sun Jul 16 02:14:34 CEST 2006
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:56:47PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> > Hi
> > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 08:26:35PM +0200, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> Rich Felker wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> 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...
> >> >
> >> > It produced none of these things. What produced these things was the
> >> > fact that these codecs were originally designed (by idiot designers)
> >> > to only work in one container, so that (bigger idiot) windows users
> >> > came up with obviously-incorrect ways to store them in other
> >> > containers with double-container nonsense.
> >> >
> >> > What I'm talking about is very different. NUT is very specific about
> >> > how arbitrary codecs must be stored, but the same requirements that
> >> > work for NUT work for any sane container. The same frames stored in
> >> > NUT can be stored in AVI and a proper player will play them just fine.
> >> For examples, about H264 you need to either choose either
> >> AVI(bytestream) wraping or MOV wraping. You shall standardize wraping
> >> for codecs (vorbis, dv, h264 comes in mind). Saying "just like in AVI"
> >> is stupid and will produce more mess than it is actually. Wraping is
> >> another problem than "identifying" codecs by a fourcc.
> >> And why not specifying BEST wraping method for codecs instead of using
> >> AVI one ?
> >> IMHO H264 NAL formating in MOV is better than in AVI. Not standardizing
> >> wraping is just laziness IMHO.
> > h.264 specifies how things should be formated if iam not mistaken (dont kill
> > me if i remember this wrong, its some time since i read the spec) and that
> > is how things should be stored obviously ... mov does something different
> > its not a avi vs. mov question but a standard vs. non standard thing
> The H.264 spec only mentions the NAL format with SPS and PPS
> transmitted inband with the rest of the video data. ISO 14496-15
> (along with -12 and -14) specifies the out of band version.
ok, it seems you are right the h.264 spec doesnt specify how nal units must
be "seperated" just that everything must be in a nal unit ...
> Both have
> advantages in the applications they were intended for.
i dont agree, theres no real advantage of the format used in mov compared
to simply putting the startcode prefixes infront of the NAL units
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
In the past you could go to a library and read, borrow or copy any book
Today you'd get arrested for mere telling someone where the library is
More information about the ffmpeg-devel