W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2012

Re: approaches to recording

From: Timothy B. Terriberry <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:38:31 -0700
Message-ID: <507EA6C7.6020803@mozilla.com>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Jim Barnett wrote:
> Are there encodings that can handle dynamically adding tracks that do _not_ support streaming encoding?  Streaming encoding may well belong at the Track level, anyway.  I think that it's  primary purpose is to support media processing (including  speech recognition), and for those uses you want to get pure audio, pure video, etc.

If you're not doing streaming encoding, you don't have to "dynamically" 
add tracks. You can simply collect all the data (possibly caching 
encoded versions on disk, but that is an implementation detail) and mux 
the results at the end, when you're done.

You will probably need to insert black frames / silence for tracks that 
do not begin at the start of the stream, as most playback software will 
be confused if there is no data for them for a track for an extended 
period of time. Likely also at the end, too (if you want seeking to work).

However, I agree with others that a separate "track-level" recording 
interface is a bad idea. There's nothing it can do that can't be done by 
a stream-level interface using a stream with a single track, but there 
are plenty of things a track-level interface cannot do that a 
stream-level interface can (e.g., synchronization). This issue is 
completely orthogonal to whether you want an interface that returns an 
entire encoded file at once, or whether you want to support streaming 
encoding. I think it's a mistake to conflate the two, as there are 
plenty of uses for streaming encoding that involve synchronized audio 
and video (our weekly Air Mozilla broadcasts being one, just for example).
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 12:39:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:02 GMT