On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:35:02PM +0200, Gisle Sælensminde wrote: > Bitstream filter: > > Pro: > > - Modular, the CC code can be kept separate. > - Less complex code > > Cons: > > Need for features that I can't see is present in the bitstream filters: > - As far as I can see -no support for timestamps (PTS), required for > reordering and timestams in the output file > - No support for arguments to bitstream filters (unlike audio and video > filters) > > Decoder: > > Pro: > > - Parser already present. Easy to insert extraction code on the right spots > > Cons: > > - Less modular, CC code mixed with decoding code. > - Does not easily extend to encoders/insertion. > - Parameters (for input files)?
*scratches head* I wonder now if you misunderstood or if you discarded the variant I pointed out due to effort/complexity? Demuxer+Parser/Muxer: Pro: - Parsing is often done in demuxer anyway - Appears as proper subtitle stream - Same usage whether you want to mux into/demux from MPEG-TS or formats saving CC data separately like MOV and WTV - Works without requiring decode/encode Con: - Needs reordering code in demuxer/parser - Needs extra signalling code from parser to demuxer (probably) - Custom code for partially rewriting frames in the muxer needed for MPEG containers - Generally a good bit more of complexity. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
