[Ffmpeg-devel] On2 Flix Engine uses memcoder in commerical Flix Engine

Måns Rullgård mru
Fri Apr 28 20:36:06 CEST 2006

Steve Lhomme <steve.lhomme at free.fr> writes:

> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Steve Lhomme said:
>>> John Koleszar wrote:
>>>> Rich Felker wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:10:51PM -0400, John Koleszar wrote:
>>>>>> Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>>>> Out of curiosity: Why do you mux to Ogg?  It has very little going for
>>>>>>> it..
>>>>>> Rather than inventing a new container format, I wanted to use something
>>>>>> existing. Ogg was the only one I knew of at the time that allowed you to
>>>>>> write a well formatted stream without seeking, a requirement since the
>>>>>> data is sent over a pipe.
>>>>> NUT is the best choice for this -- it's specifically designed with the
>>>>> goal of writing without seeking and never causing more buffering/delay
>>>>> than necessary. However...
>>>> The thing that amazes me is that nobody else set those as design goals
>>>> before. It just seems so fundamental to me. Dare you concede that ogg
>>>> got one thing right? :)
>>> I think you forgot another container that is already in use: matroska.
>> Matroska is overly complicated and bloated.
> What do you find complicated ?

Have you even read the spec?

> Given 3 developers wrote their own parser simply based on the one HTML
> page of specs.

One looooong HTML page.  I have read it and implemented a demuxer, so
I know what I'm talking about when I say it's complicated.

The complexity of a format is not directly related to the size of the
specification.  The MPEG PS and TS specs are fairly lengthy, but
implementing a demuxer is still simple.  This is because the formats
were designed with ease of parsing/demuxing in mind.

M?ns Rullg?rd
mru at inprovide.com

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list