[MPlayer-users] Re: Free audio codec for .AVI files ?

[D Richard Felker III]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:24:45PM +0100, Alexander Noé wrote:
> >>The OGM overhead is, assuming 4 kb pages, at least 0,6% (real life file
> >>usually have 1%), for AVI, it is 16 bytes per frame/chunk 
> >>(virtualdub[whatever]
> >>uses 24 bytes), for MKV, it is currently 13 (will be 16 for real B-frames)
> >
> >For NUT it's something like 6-8.
> >
> When lacing 2 frames into one block for a CFR file, it would be the 
> same, and should be less
> for larger laces.

I don't even want to know about this "lacing" nonsense. It's huge
added complexity that a hardware device without excessively large
buffers would never be able to handle. And only "CFR"? Why do you
distinguish "CFR/VFR" anyway in the file format? They're just
different time base units...

> >No, I can judge it directly by the size of your code, which seems to
> >be about 100k.
> >That's about 5x as big as a demuxer should be. If you
> >want to argue that it's not overcomplicated, write a 20k demuxer.
> >
> LOL. You judge the complexity of a demuxer from its size? Just using 
> shorter identifiers or
> moving some convenience out of the demuxer (down to a level as the 
> (in)convencience of
> libmatroska), it would be *seriously* smaller. But why should I? Just to 
> make you happy?

Now you're being completely stupid. Obviously you don't shrink down
identifiers to make it smaller. If you want, compare the binary sizes
instead. But unless someone makes severe effort to "compress" the
source with tiny identifiers or tricky macros, source and binary size
should be roughly the same order.

> > >Before you cry about your overhead again, here are some numbers. The test
> > >file is muxed from 36 MP3 source files, which last about 150 mins 
> > >altogether,
> >
> >Not interested in your stupid test cases. Try a movie.
> >
> Ah, you don't like the numbers, so they are stupid. Good.

No, I don't like a test of audio files. No one really cares about
audio-only files and overhead for them. The question is what portion
of a 703 meg movie file is wasted on overhead.

BTW your mailer seems to have a problem with adding lots of extra
lines when quoting...

Rich