[Ffmpeg-devel] [bugs] grabbing v4l2 -> buffer underflow ; packet too large ; pcm_s16le vs mp2
Fri Feb 24 15:57:51 CET 2006
Erik Slagter said:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 14:37 +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> I'm not saying we shouldn't try to get it right. However, I just don't
>> get the point in making the format so complicated for no apparent gain.
> I guess we'll have to live with the iso way of doing things. The
> alternative is non-open most of the time... But yeah, complaint very
> much sustained. Makes me think of the OSI network protocol stack :-(
I never understood the point with OSI either.
>> > For myself I'd rather put effort in mp4 than in more or
>> > less obsoleted technology like mpeg1/2 containers.
>> Obsoleted? Do you ever watch TV? DVD? That's MPEG2 all the way.
> Even better: DVD and DVB. I probably didn't make myself clear using the
> concept "obsolete". What I mean, is it worth the wile putting effort in
> combinations of containers and codecs that will probably not become
> ehrrrm, very popular. The popular combinations are already supported by
> ffmpeg, afaik. An exception would be mpeg4 in TS and h264 in TS, these
> we'll probably going to see more and more. IIRC you already patched the
> TS (de)muxer to support mpeg4, I really don't know about h264.
H.264 in TS is supported by ffmpeg. Old MPEG4 (14496-2) seems to be going
away rather quickly. It never got a hold in the broadcast industry, partly
because of obnoxious licensing terms (requiring royalties on a per-file
basis). H.264 looks like its set to become mainstream quite soon.
mru at inprovide.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel