[MPlayer-users] Re: lavc-Options for *BEST* quality?

[Mark Zealey]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:40:46PM +0000, Diego Zuccato wrote:

> > > continuous, but it would allow seeking in incomplete files.
> That was the key point ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> > Anyway seeking is already possible in incomplete files with the MPCF
> > draft, altho a little more work is required. You have to seek one
> > packet at a time, not in whole keyframe steps.
> Well, I don't know what it is. Mine was just a proposal... Nothing about
> a missing "global index", that is really useful if the file is complete.
> But then you have to sacrifice 100K of memory just to keep it... O:-)
> The dear old complexity tradeoff... Is it better to keep a bug struct
> accessible in short time or a small one that requires a lot of time to
> be accessed? (think about n-ary trees vs binary-trees... a node in a
> binary-tree is smaller, but the tree is deeper. And is it worth keeping
> a parent pointer in every node or is it better to do a search every time
> the parent is needed?)

Why not have like a key seek packet, so eache keyframe has a set of pointers to
the next and previous keyframe, but every 10 keyframes there is a pointer to a
keyframe 10 keyframes away, a sort of super key-frame, this could be layered
many times over, and wouldn't take up much space but would allow much better
seeking about non-indexed files. To seek to a place in the file it would be
almost a binary-search down the 'tree' of next/prev pointers to keyframes...

-- 

Mark Zealey (aka JALH on irc.oftc.net: #zealos and many more)
mark at zealos.org; mark at itsolve.co.uk

UL++++>$ G!>(GCM/GCS/GS/GM) dpu? s:-@ a17! C++++>$ P++++>+++++$ L+++>+++++$
!E---? W+++>$ !w--- r++ !t---?@ !X---?  !R- !tv b+ G+++ e>+++++ !h++* r!-- y