Hi, 2016-05-04 3:06 GMT+02:00 Rostislav Pehlivanov <atomnu...@gmail.com>: > vc2hqencode is not the reference encoder, vc2-reference is. It's even worse > though.
Sorry, I thought authoritative could mean "from the authors", so I didn't mean it as "the" reference/"the authority". Just a good reference in case the specs are not clear or don't mention it. If vc2-reference or "the" reference dirac codec do it differently, then those should be followed. > Also, the commit message still says 0 instead of 0xff. I'm getting confused: neither version of the patch does. On a side note, maybe I should retract the "standardized value" for the padding. The commit message does mention 0 for the prefix, because I didn't see any reference as what should be there. Anything I've seen uses 0 prefix bytes. > btw the value 0xff > makes sense since that's the golomb code for 0. Would make reading broken > files a little more robust (instead of reading a ton of zeroes, losing > bitstream sync and causing trouble elsewhere). Yeah, that's what I meant with the rationale. Classical reason to choose a value for a padding. Not a big deal, but isn't the specific codeword for 0 '1'? > Could you make the comment a C89 style like the rest of the encoder? Will come later today, and I may wait for your other patch to vc2enc. And sorry I haven't followed the style of the file. > Other than that the patch is okay. Slice padding is usually very small, so > no real performance degradation. I haven't tested but I take your word on it. Best regards, -- Christophe _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
