| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.video.videolan.vls.devel |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
thnks for your reply Loic.....
as cristophe also explained...i know the main threat
of using PS in UDP is loss of packets would result in
no new PCR's (or SCR) till the next pack header...
but if you have noticed ..thses days the players(mpeg
decoders) are much tolerent to heavy PCR jitters (
particular a few harware ones )thats why i was poking
into this idea of PS over UDP.
actuallu this TS to PS in VLS is giving me some
playback issues with mpeg1 streams...
I have not yet looked at the code on how its handled
...but if somebody has an idea , it would be really
appreciated.
regards
SUKESH
--- Loïc_Minier <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] - Fri, Jul 26, 2002:
>
> > sorry for not being clear...what i mean is if you
> send
> > 7 TS packets in one UDP packet why not take
> > (7*188)bytes when the stream is PS and send it on
> UDP.
>
> TS means Transport Stream and is particularly
> adapted to network
> diffusion.
>
> It permits a lot more than PS and is designed to
> be of a simpler use
> for a lot of tasks.
>
>
> Imagine you loose a network packet, 188 bytes. In
> the case of TS, you
> loose one TS packet, not more and you have a change
> to resync on the
> next one. But if you loose 188 bytes of a PS stream,
> you'll loose at
> least a full PS packet, that may be about 15 times
> more IIRC.
>
> --
> Loïc Minier <[email protected]>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
--
This is the vls-devel mailing-list, see http://www.videolan.org/vls-devel/
To unsubscribe, please read http://www.videolan.org/lists.html
If you are in trouble, please contact <[email protected]>