From: Thomas V. S. <th...@ap...> - 2004-07-30 17:40:53
|
Hi, On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 19:34, Ronald Bultje wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: > > Can I ask why it's a good idea at all to pretend that one file become= s > > one buffer, and limit ourselves internally this way ? >=20 > Image-to-video. ffmpeg -i jpg, jpeg2yuv, everything. This is extremely > useful for still inserts in DVDs, SVCDs, photo-VCDs and the like. Any > multimedia toolset has such a tool. If you don't understand its use, th= en > you've probably never looked at DVDs and the like. Anyway, I definately > see its use. The issue I'm asking about is not this. Of course I understand why it's useful to extract frames from a video and store them one frame per file. The question I'm asking is, why does the implementation on the GStreamer level have to limit you to "one-buffer-per-file" ? Why not use the NEW_MEDIA concept we have already to make this explicit ? That way your very limited use case doesn't tie down GStreamer to an implicit concept of "1 buffer =3D 1 file". For example, if it's audio, and you want to store one second of audio in each file - what do you do ? create buffers of one second ? If you want to record raw video, but in files of maximum 1 GB in size, what do you do ? Send buffers of 1 GB ? That's what I'm asking about. Not whether or not it makes sense to split a video file in a bunch of frames :) Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> If you ain=E2=80=99t there ain=E2=80=99t nobody else to impress <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ |