[ogg-dev] Skeleton 4.0 final draft

Silvia Pfeiffer silvia at silvia-pfeiffer.de
Thu Jun 10 20:28:04 PDT 2010

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Chris Pearce <chris at pearce.org.nz> wrote:
>  On 11/06/2010 1:48 p.m., Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>> On 06/10/2010 09:25 PM, Chris Pearce wrote:
>>> I looked at Benjamin's proposal, it does indeed produce much better
>>> compression. However I decided not to use it because I felt it was too
>>> complex.
>> For the record, the Skeleton 4.0, as implemented by OggIndex, currently
>> requires a multi-round iteration to produce.  The encoder produces the
>> index, then shifts the file content downstream to make room for the index
>> packet ... but doing so changes the byte offsets, forcing the index to be
>> recalculated. This potentially changes the length of the index, which
>> forces the output to be shifted again, and changes the byte offsets again...
> Right, this is an implementation decision. You need to encode the index
> usually twice, in rare cases three times. It is cheap and easy to just
> recall the function to recalculate the index. I'd rather do that than to
> mess around figuring out the perfect size up front. There's nothing
> stopping me from doing something cleverer here, except my desire to
> apply my cleverness elsewhere.

I regard this as an implementation issue, too, and nothing fundamental
to the skeleton 4 format.

However, I wonder if Benjamin's implementation was cleverer for this
particular part and it might be useful to extract just this part of
his implementation, seeing as it's already implemented? Note that this
has nothing to do with the choice of skeleton formats.

>> For a two hour movie with frequent keyframes, like on DVD, the index could
>> easily be in excess of 50 KB, maybe even 100 KB.
> As a data point here, I indexed a 2 hour 55 minute theora+vorbis movie I
> have here with a 2000ms keyframe index interval, the index used  38404
> bytes, for an overhead of 0.00184199%. I doubt any network capable of
> playing this video in real time would notice an extra 37KB at the start
> of the file.

I agree with Chris' prioritisation of simplicity over an overhead that
is in the small KB range. I know the ffmpeg guys might care, but in
reality it doesn't make a difference to the application unless you are
on a low-bandwidth network and then you have other issues to worry
about with video.

Also, I believe that on small devices decoding with a simpler
algorithm is preferable over bandwidth savings, since they usually
have to deal with a less capable CPU, while networks are now fast

I'm happy with Chris shipping the spec - if possible, the OggIndex
implementation could be improved with Benjamin's code.

Also, I would suggest that we can keep Benjamin's more complex
indexing algorithm for a later version where we may see a need to
compress skeleton more. Incidentally, what is the typical overhead on
a vorbis or speex file?


More information about the ogg-dev mailing list