Re: Encoder-decoder interface question.

"Kondoros Attila" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi!
> I thought I ask this here because it's not clear to me
> what is in the best interest for tarkin right now/in
> the future. My concern is that right now tarkin
> encoder/decoder is very strongly coupled with the ogg
> file format (IMHO too strongly coupled). I know that
> the Ogg will be Tarkin's first container but I think
> that we should not limit the Tarkin stream only to
> Ogg. An interface layer between the encoder/decoder
> and the file itself would be very needed for many
> reasons:
> 1. To have an easy way to test the encoding/decoding
> cycle if I try something new (easy in memory "unit
> testing" and not the
> pnm->encoder->ogg->decoder->pnm->psnr cycle).
> 2. Could help others that want to put the stream in
> some other file format. There is no clear way right
> now for this...
> 3. Easier understanding of the code for the starters.
> I know I had wandered somethimes and get confused is
> this is ogg or tarkin's functionality at what I was
> looking at.
> 4. If something new comes in the tarkin stream format
> then it is no clean way to put those fields in ogg
> right now. And a lot of fields are "hard-wired" to
> some specific ogg containers.
> 5. It's tough to debug that "encoder/ogg coupling"
> too.
> This was not meant to be a critique to anyone's code
> just wanted to know how to proceed next. I isolated
> the code that does the encoding/decoding and have put
> a small interface around it. It does require some
> cleanup and I had not conected yet to ogg but this
> will come soon.
> Am I wasting my time or is there an interest in this
> interface-around-tarkin thing? I know that that there
> is some effort in the "UCI Project" but that wants to
> be much more than a simple encoder/decoder
> interface... Should I try to use "UCI Projects"'s
> encoder/decoder interface? (I haven't checked on it
> yet to see what it takes...). My interface is very
> thin and because of that I know that some things are
> missing from it,  and I should not invent another
> interface if there is one we should standardize on
> (UCI or something else anyone?).
> I'll gladly accept any critique, comment or idea you
> might have on this! If I'm missing something please
> let me know. Thanks.
> Best Regards,
>  Kondoros Attila

Hi Attila,

i forward your email to the uci-devel list as well, so that Alex Stewart is
aware.
Your question for a commonly usable codec interface in tarkin is valid IMHO,
and UCI could well be used for that, in fact this is the vey reason why Alex
started to do it.

Main priority for Xiph codecs was of course not Tarkin right now, but Vorbis
and Theora ( Tarkin developers may forgive me ) . The interesting thing that
strikes me about the discussion of an UCI interface for Tarkin right now,
was if there is maybe something missing in UCI that Tarkin might require,
taking into account it maybe needs a completely different interface than any
MPEG codec might have ??

Christian

Sites : http://mcf.sourceforge.net
http://sf.net/projects/mcf
MCF mailing lists : news://news.gmane.org
gmane.comp.video.mcf.general
gmane.comp.video.mcf.devel
gmane.comp.video.mcf.mplayer
gmane.comp.video.mcf.announce
gmane.comp.video.mcf.mpc
Soon :  www.corecodec.com






-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: viaVerio will pay you up to
$1,000 for every account that you consolidate with us.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4749864;7604308;v?
http://www.viaverio.com/consolidator/osdn.cfm
===========================================================================
Universal Codec Interface (UCI) maillist, [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/uci-devel
http://uci.sourceforge.net/