[theora-dev] Re: Ogg mux design
xiphmont at xiph.org
Mon Feb 16 18:12:01 PST 2004
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 06:05:13PM -0800, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 07:41:05PM -0500, Monty wrote:
> > Yes, I remember this. Unfortunately it makes some repagination
> > operations impossible, as you can't as easily reconstruct granule
> > positions going backwards. You have a granpos for every packet in
> > encode; you may not be able to regenerate that later.
> No it doesn't. To summarize an irc discussion; while there are
> differences in the corner cases, neither of us sees a significant
> difference between the ordering of the two schemes.
> What *is* different is the fact that you can flag a bitstream as being
> 'continuous' or 'discontinuous'. The codecs must know this and be able
> to tell the mux layer in the case of a given substream. Thus, Monty's
> proposal sneaks in an element of the old metaheader proposal in that the
> codecs can give hints to the mux layer about which streams to buffer and
> which to drop.
> That's the substance of the difference. I still think it's not worth it,
> and he does. Any other arguments? :)
There's a second larger difference; ordering everything by start means
granule positions are no longer in monotonically increasing order. I
have to seek according to start time (to make the bisection work)
which means I must recalculate start granules for any seek operation.
The way things are right now, the granpositions as encoded are the
ones I use directly.
--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'theora-dev-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
More information about the Theora-dev