[Matroska-devel] revisiting StereoMode tag and

Steve Lhomme slhomme at matroska.org
Sun Aug 8 10:54:10 CEST 2010


On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Alok Ahuja <waveletcoeff at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Steve Lhomme <slhomme at matroska.org> wrote:
>
>> The problem is really when tracks are combined via Matroska and not inside
>> the codec. So do "top-bottom", "checkerboard", etc make sense for the way to
>> "mono" tracks can be combined or not ?
>>
>> [Alok] - I do not know of a practical example in which we have individual
> tracks representing top view or bottom view only, or for that matter
> checkerboard. Hence, they do not make sense for the StereoPosition tag
>

OK. Let's say it's OK for now... They don't make sense to me either. It's
been taking a while to get rid of interlaced encoding, I hope this weirdo
modes don't get much attention anyway...


>
>
>> As you can see, when the tracks are defined as dependent, they need to
>> define which part of the dependency they are. So what would it be in this
>> case ?
>>
>>
>> [Alok] - I think you have StereoPosition nailed correctly to define the
> track dependency- left eye view, right eye view, background view. You could
> consider an incremental and generic "reference view" track that could be
> defined as a dependent of the other tracks. These references could be
> numerous in nature, and it would be up to the codec to choose how they are
> pertinent in the final representation.
>

Yes, There can be many reference variants of the same file. For now it's
undefinied which one is used. Maybe I should add a UID per Dependency unit.
So they can be referenced and tagged.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/attachments/20100808/dd57d066/attachment.html>


More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list