[MPlayer-users] Re: Quicktime: "No 'moov' atom could be found"
rcooley at spamcop.net
Sat Aug 30 04:47:28 CEST 2003
Moritz Bunkus wrote:
> Ogg does not have the potential to become a general container. It simply
> lacks a lot of important things. Most important: there are no specs!
First of all, it has a lot of potential, because it is so flexible that
it can do just about anything, without everything it can do, having been
defined ahead of time. That gives it more potential, not less IMHO.
Sure, there's no specs yes, but it's just a matter of somebody writing
them. All this software is open source. Pretty easy to look up how
everything is done, even without specs.
> The thing is that Ogg/Ogm development is only done by one person atm
> (Nic on doom9). He's a Windows guy using a Windows approach (like using
> WAVEFORMATEX and BITMAPINFOHEADER like structures). Not that HAS to be
> bad, but neither is xiph.org involved in all this. And being a one man
> development team he is not paying a lot of attention to cross platform
ogmtools are based upon oggtools, which was, and still can be pulled
from the xiph.org CVS server. I don't really know what you mean that it
isn't cross-platform (mainly because I haven't looked at the source yet)
but the fact that ogmtools (and libogg/MPlayer) works perfectly on just
about every platform, is a sign that it is, for all practical purposes,
> Let's take text subtitles. Ogg does not have a standard way of storing
> which charset was used for them. Neither do they have to be stored as
Just not popular yet. Feel free to get involved and solve all the
things that haven't been worked-on/standardized yet.
> Next point: No index whatsoever. Pretty big overhead (oh yes!). No way
The overhead is larger than something like avi, but it's relatively low.
> to know if an Ogg page is part of an Ogg packet spanning several pages
> (so I have to throw away the first Ogg page after seeking). Theora is
> stored differently in Ogg than all the other stuff is. No "real"
> timestamps (just the "granulepos" which is based on the "sample rate"
> for the stream - e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4... So no vfps video at the moment
> without braking compatibility). No aspect ratio. No standarized way of
> storing ANY additional information - be it pictures, text, comments,
Ogg is flexible. As soon as someone puts in aspect tags (hasn't been
necessary, due to the MPEG-4 aspect tag) then they will exist, and will
get adopted by the rest of the Ogg software. It just hasn't been done yet.
And BTW, Theora isn't even to beta yet, so it's quite likely there will
be significant changes. It's open source, so you very well could get
involved and solve everything that you consider to be a problem.
>>The main advantage Quicktime would have over Ogg and Matroska is that it
>>is more standardized and widely implemented in the proprietary world.
Well, Ogg is just too new to be standard. However, because it is
BSD-licensed, it has a MUCH better chance of being adopted than
Matroska. (Sorry all you hard-core GPLers, but that's the real world
> Yes. But Matroska has specs, Ogg doesn't (only very basic ones). I don't
> see Ogg winning the race for the Next General Purpose Container
> Format. Maybe Matroska doesn't win either.
Ogg is very good, and it is here, right now. Quicktime container would
be good, but so far I haven't seen too much support for it, outside of
Quicktime itself. Sure, there's plenty of playback support, but few
programs that encode/edit quicktime files.
More information about the MPlayer-users