On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM, DENOUAL Franck <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr > wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Concerning > > > > Content-Range: xywh 160,120,320,240/4:00:00 > Content-Range: xywh:pixel 160,120,320,240/4:00 > Content-Range: xywh:percent 25,25,50,50/4:00 > > I think that for Content-Range, it would be more coherent to have the > same unit between the range and the instance length: > > ie: Content-Range: <spatialarea> ' ' <topleftx> ',' <toplefty>',' > <width>',' <height> > '/' <total width>','<total_heigth> > > Content-Range: xywh 160,120,320,240/320,240 (instead of 4:00:00) > Content-Range: xywh:pixel 160,120,320,240/320,240 > Yeah, I think these make sense. > Content-Range: xywh:percent 25,25,50,50/??? (100,100 not really useful!) > I think the total should be the same as above: <total width>,<total height> in pixels I also think it should be the same for duration: <total duration> in seconds > But using this: > > 1- we loose the duration information > No, I don't think we do. The duration is still given in a time Content-Range, which is where it belongs. > 2- what is the instance-length when using 'track' unit (Content-Range: > track 'video'/4:00) > Maybe the number of tracks? What would it be for id? Maybe there it should be the duration? Cheers, Silvia.Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 09:02:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:43 UTC