On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:34:45PM +0200, Jerome Martinez wrote: > Le 13/05/2015 21:58, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > >Does the text somewhere say why just avi and mp4 are listed as > >containers ? (i didnt spot that but i might have missed it) > > They are the only containers I know supporting FFV1 (Matroska is not > listed here because it does not support FFV1 directly: it uses the > AVI compatibility layer, so currently implementation in Matroska is > defined by implementation in AVI + definition of AVI compatibility > layer in Matroska) > > It is not possible to be exhaustive, there is no standardized way to > say that "if there is a configuration record, it must be at here", > and e.g. for MOV the glbl box is never defined in Apple specs not in > ISO specs, it is specific to FFmpeg even if it is aimed to be used > for all formats requesting a configuration record. > If by chance ISO accepts FFV1 in MP4, they could request that the > configuration record is in a "fv1C" box or other change instead of > the glbl box... Usually the file format maintainer writes rules but > if I understood well what happened in the case of FFV1 in MP4/MOV, > FFmpeg decided to use "home made" glbl box and I try to write such > reality in the specification, not easy. > > So this is case per case, file format per file format, I list what I > am aware of. > Are you aware of another possible container for FFV1 and supported > by FFmpeg?
nut and ffm surely work too > > > It should make it clear that these are not the only containers > >supported but that nearly any container can be used > > Agreed. > > Is it OK with: > > "This configuration record can be placed in any file format > supporting configuration records, fitting as much as possible with > how the file format uses to store configuration records. The > configuration record storage place and NumBytes are currently > defined and supported by this specification for the following > container formats:" ok > > Note: when I finish to technically update the specification, I'll > ask a native English speaker for reviewing the whole spec. good > LyX Document > > >[...] > >>@@ -2728,7 +3056,7 @@ if( version < 2 ) > >> \begin_inset space ~ > >> \end_inset > >>-FrameHeader01( ) > >>+if( keyframe && !ConfigurationRecordIsPresent) > >is it better to add indirection here instead of spelling out that > >its version < 2 ? > > at this moment of the parsing, version is not defined in the case of > a bitstream conforming to version < 2 (it is defined just after). > In the current FFV1 specification, it does not make sense (version > is tested before being defined) > I don't see how to describe correctly the bitstream with "version < 2" here. hmm ok [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even known they had done so. -- Xenophanes
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel