[MPlayer-dev-eng] MPCF Draft/Discussion (MPlayer ContainerFormat)

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Friday 07 February 2003 18:50, michael c wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >didnt i say that? u said the universal packet would be better because
> >we dont have to change the docs for a new fourcc, but for the uses u
> >suggested (menu, chapters ...) it must be documented or noone can use
> >it
>
> hmm. i said (or at least meant) that the work to document it would be
> basically the same, no matter which way you use, so you could as well pick
> one that's more flexible.
> i was under the impression, that using fourccs (or some sort of format
> description like it) might add another tidbit of flexibility to the format.
> maybe someone wants to put the dvd cover into the file or some other
> (binary) data. while some might find this specific example silly, the
> infrastructure might be useful (in the future). i guess that was my whole
> point. correct me though, if i'm completely wrong.
ill add a user data packet, i thought the info packet would be enough for user 
data, but the example of the dvd cover image shows i was wrong ...

>
> >i dont understand why u insist on demuxers to be unable to skip unknown
> >packets, this is just plain stupid, the demuxer just compares the known
> >startcodes with the current packet start and if none matches & it doesnt
> >start with a 0 bit then its an unknown packet and it will skip
> >to the next by following the forward pointer, if the forward pointer is
> >damaged it will search for the next matching 2 pairs of matching
> >pointers or a known startcode ...
>
> Okay, i guess part of my comments were a bit silly ;-) of course you can
> still skip unknown packets. the startcodes probably are sufficient to use
> for most purposes and additional features. except for other binary
> attachments... maybe an alternative would be to create
> binary-attachment-packets if this is really needed in the future.
>
> by the way, did anybody think about how/whether to make multi-angle videos
> possible in this format? or did i not see it again? does anybody even find
> this useful? would it be overkill to implement? just thinking about
> flexibility again, i suppose :-)
hmm its supposed to be simple ... , anyway, multiangle is no problem
there are 2 different possibilities
1. just add more video streams, and some info packets to provide some info 
about them, the problem here is which audio + video stream to combine, so 
multiple video streams are IMHO more for different bitrates or such which can 
be combined in any order with the audio /subtitle streams
2b just add the stuff at the end (time & fileposition wise) 
2c add some info packets which describe the individual parts (start-end 
segmentname)
2d add some info packets which contain a list of what to play (anglename 
segmentname segmentname,...)

the first part / stream of the video should be the normal angle so that simple 
players can play it to ...

[...]

Michael