[matroska-devel] Re: [UCI-Devel] Project status

Pamel Paul at msn.com
Wed Feb 5 18:28:20 CET 2003


"Steve Lhomme" <steve.lhomme at free.fr> wrote in message
> Why did I chose the timecode instead of a count reference ? Because if you
lose
> a frame in between your counter is fucked and all P or B frames are lost.
While
> with the timecode only the missing frame is lost (unless the missing one
is an I
> frame).

Steve,

What do you think about leaving the P and N frame timecodes as null when the
frame being referenced is the one immediately?

Also, are the Timecodes stored absolute to the stream, or are they still
using the Clusters relative timecode?


Pamel



http://matroska.org



More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list