Hi On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 04:49:16PM +0200, Oded Shimon wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 03:29:46PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:28:38PM +0200, Oded Shimon wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 02:42:00PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
one index for syncpoint pos, one for each stream?
Hmm, not sure it is worth it.. How do you even tell between them (I guess a stream_id_plus1 in the begginning). Doesn't add much for robustness (the stream stuff is tiny, 1-4kb of 80kb), and brings back the old index_ptr and several index complexity issues.. I'm against.
ok
btw, how much space would we gain/loose if we use - sp[i-2] + 2*sp[i-1] as sycpoint position predictor instead of sp[i-1]? or even sp[i-1] + median(sp[i-1] - sp[i-2], sp[i-2] - sp[i-3], sp[i-3] - sp[i-4])
You mean, for the syncpoint positions?.. I actually have tried that already (only the former suggestion), quite a while ago... and found it to be completely useless... At least for my test video. The numbers were pretty much out of /dev/urandom ...
Actually, hmm, I tried something different, iirc it was '65536 - sp[i-1]' or something like that... I'll look into this...
BTW, whats median() ?...
median(a,b,c) = a+b+c - max(a,b,c) - min(a,b,c) [...] -- Michael