Michael Fabian 'Xaymar' Dirks (12021-05-20): > Well, it's a combination of many things really, not bad math itself. > 1ms works perfectly for the frame rates of 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 20, 25, > 40, 50, 100, 125, 200, 250, 500, and 1000. For any other rate, you > will have to look at the actual timestamp of N clusters and M blocks, > where N and M are undefined. N and M are undefined because there is no > solution that works for every rate, other than having a per-track > rational time base > (https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification/pull/425). > > If there were zero dropped/skipped frames in the encoding process (we > have a packet for every frame), then it can be worked around by > looking ahead for 1 second, but that is a lot to ask from an > application just to know the actual rate.
Why would an application need to know the actual frame rate with so much precision? > Matroska is far from perfect as it is right now, so more vocal input > on the IETF standardization process for Matroska/WebM might be > helpful. To be really helpful, it is necessary to understand the issue properly. In my experience, most people who complain about the precision of timestamps are using them wrong. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
