[Matroska-devel] (no subject)
slhomme at matroska.org
Fri Mar 6 08:59:02 CET 2015
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Frank Galligan <fgalligan at google.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> Long time.
> Anyway, The altref frames need to have a 0 duration, but we don't need the
> 0 duration in a Block to have it signal that the altref is a non keyframe.
> We are perfectly fine having the altref frame setting the ReferenceBlock if
> it refers to another frame, signaling that the altref frame is a non
> I just don't want muxers writing P frames with a duration of 0 to signal
> non keyframe.
Why is this a problem ?
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Steve Lhomme <slhomme at matroska.org>
>> On 28/02/2015 03:39, Chris Cunningham wrote:
>>> + Steve, author of this addition.
>> Hi everyone,
>> The change was made following this discussion to handle alt-ref frames in
>> VP8 at the container level.
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:27 PM Chris Cunningham
>>> <chcunningham at google.com <mailto:chcunningham at google.com>> wrote:
>>> Hey Matroska!
>>> First, let me apologize if I'm asking an answered question. The
>>> mailing list search function is a bad link
>>> I work on Chromium Media and we've seen a little confusion from
>>> content creators around a line that was added
>>> to the Matroska spec
>>> <http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html> for
>>> BlockDuration (and whether it should be used in WebM):
>>> "When set to 0 that means the frame is not a keyframe."
>>> Just curious about the history/motivations for this. WebM's
>>> container guidelines don't mention this and AFAIK WebM (de)muxers
>>> just use ReferenceBlocks ... is there an edge-case where that
>>> doesn't work out?
Matroska association Chairman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Matroska-devel