- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:39:15 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
- Message-ID: <bug-19676-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19676 Priority: P2 Bug ID: 19676 CC: acolwell@chromium.org, mike@w3.org, public-html-media@w3.org Assignee: adrianba@microsoft.com Summary: timestampOffset accuracy QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org Severity: normal Classification: Unclassified OS: All Reporter: pal@sandflow.com Hardware: All Status: NEW Version: unspecified Component: Media Source Extensions Product: HTML WG Time offsets and durations within media streams, e.g. to specify splice points, are often expressed in multiples of video frame or audio sample durations. These durations are therefore typically rational* numbers, e.g. 1/24, 1001/30000, 1/48000, etc. As a floating-point double, timestampOffset cannot exactly represent such rational time offsets. For instance, (double) ((1/24)*17) < 17*1/24 < (double) (17/24) -- at least in Win32 python. Accuracy can be important when a splice point needs to fall on a specific frame boundary or when comparing multiple timestampOffset. For instance, depending on how it was calculated, (double) (17/24) might actually fall either within the 16th frame or the 17th frame, instead of the boundary between the 16th and 17th frame. Potential approaches include: - specifying rounding and closest frame boundary selection algorithms - expressing timestampOffset as a rational (the implementation could store this internally as it wishes) * Many container formats (ISO BMFF, MXF...) express durations and offsets as rationals, e.g. as integer multiples of a rational timescale expressed as the ratio between an integer numerator and an integer denominator. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 17:39:17 UTC