[foms] Proposal: adaptive streaming using open codecs

Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 15 15:19:10 PST 2010

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Chris Pearce <chris at pearce.org.nz> wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 6:48 a.m., Steve Lhomme wrote:
>> Doesn't it lead to more sync issues when the files you received are
>> not interleaved ?
> Yes, it's harder to manage non-interleaved streams over multiple
> connections.
>> One big pro for non interleaved is that switching between languages
>> (or regular/commentary track) is a lot easier and the only reasonable
>> way to handle it server side.
> The earlier consensus from most of the content providers was the non
> interleaved was easier to manage, particularly at large scale when you
> have a number of different bitrate streams, and a number of different
> audio tracks.

We have to be careful where we take that statement. Just because the
large content owners don't want to do physical chunks and want to keep
audio and video tracks separate doesn't mean we have to do that over
the network or use chunks in the manifest file. There is always the
possibility to have something different on disk than what is being
sent over the network. For large content providers use of such server
extensions makes a lot of sense. We also have to look at what makes
more sense in the players and what makes sense for small content


More information about the foms mailing list