[Fwd: Re: Re: [Matroska-devel] Re: Adding matroska support to FFMPEG via libmatroska/libebml, in C++ ?]

Steve Lhomme steve.lhomme at free.fr
Wed Oct 15 09:47:07 CEST 2003

ChristianHJW wrote:
> I promised not to reply anymore to ffmpeg-devel AT lists.sf.net after my 
> last email, but i thought i forward you Felker's last reply, in case 
> anybody likes to point him to Alex Noe's overhead comparison ;) ....
> Michael Niedermayer, the author of the 'nut' specs, certainly knows his 
> stuff, no doubt. He wasnt interested to help making our specs that time, 
> but came with his specs after we started making matroska a reality. 
> There is no working implementation of 'nut' AFAIK, and i really hope it 
> will stay that way. Low overhead was never our main focus, but future 
> extendability, and overhead will be even less important when DVD burners 
> will have replaced CDs completely, so whats the point. I wonder if a nut 
> file could easily support h.264 NALUs or can be edited without a codec ....

As I was told on IRC : don't feed the troll... I should have remembered 
Maybe NUT (was that the Mplayer Container ?) is good at some stuff. But 
based on why the troll says, it sound like a mix of MPEG & AVI. Which 
has nothing new or interresting. Also the comparison of mindset makes me 
feel like the old debate ASM vs C vs C++. Depending on what you need to 
do, one is better than the other.

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list