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

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> Hi
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 08:26:35PM +0200, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> Rich Felker wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> The other attitude produced DV in AVI crap, Vorbis in another container
>> >> mess, fourcc collisions, FMP4 nonsense. H264 NAL reformating shit, MP3
>> >> frame wraping shit, etc...
>> > 
>> > It produced none of these things. What produced these things was the
>> > fact that these codecs were originally designed (by idiot designers)
>> > to only work in one container, so that (bigger idiot) windows users
>> > came up with obviously-incorrect ways to store them in other
>> > containers with double-container nonsense.
>> > 
>> > 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 ?
>> 
>> IMHO H264 NAL formating in MOV is better than in AVI. Not standardizing
>> wraping is just laziness IMHO.
>
> h.264 specifies how things should be formated if iam not mistaken (dont kill
> me if i remember this wrong, its some time since i read the spec) and that
> is how things should be stored obviously ... mov does something different
> its not a avi vs. mov question but a standard vs. non standard thing

The H.264 spec only mentions the NAL format with SPS and PPS
transmitted inband with the rest of the video data.  ISO 14496-15
(along with -12 and -14) specifies the out of band version.  Both have
advantages in the applications they were intended for.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mru at inprovide.com