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

[Rich Felker]

On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 08:26:35PM +0200, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> > 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 ?

We don't specify the AVI one. If there are global headers for the
codec they are required to be stored globally in NUT, not repeatedly
attached to every keyframe or whatever other broken formats the codec
allows.

This sane storage will also work just fine with AVI, and correct AVI
players will work unmodified with such files. Broken windows players
probably will not work but this just means they need to be fixed.

> IMHO H264 NAL formating in MOV is better than in AVI. Not standardizing
> wraping is just laziness IMHO.

NUT does standardize, but without any codec-specific language.

> > No, this is nonsense. The whole point with NUT's codec support is that
> > there is NO NEED for a special per-codec standard for storage. A
> > general rule applies to all codecs, and then no additional effort is
> > needed.
> 
> It is not. It avoids (big idiots) (windows ?) developpers to cook
> something wrong. That's why standards are written. General rule applies
> for now, and in a few years it won't apply anymore

Care to explain how these rules will cease to apply?

> (And of course you
> can't be sure that every codec in this world will be wraped correctly in
> NUT).

Some nonsense things cannot be, but they won't be able to be stored in
any other existing container either.

> I persist to say that a container SHALL standardize a codec wraping
> (even just saying "default wraping rule applies" and its fourcc is ...)
> if it needs to support it. It should just be a matter of one line per
> codec, as NUT is very generic ;)

The one line would be the same for every codec so it's pointless.

> What about timecode ? Subtitles ?

?

Rich