- From: Luke-Jr <Luke7Jr@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:03:36 -0500
- To: public-tt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3E4B1918.7090500@yahoo.com>
One idea I just thought of that sounded possible was to use percentages between scenes. A possible problem with this would be that all players/encoders would need the same (or very similar) definition of a scene change... or perhaps have it be a vague definition made more specific by a setting in the TT stream/file. Another problem would be that it could take a while for some applications to calculate the length of a scene especially for streaming. And the possibility of a endless stream would also need a solution. Luke-Jr wrote: > I haven't had much time to read/contribute to this ML yet, but I just > thought it would be important to point out that using a time standard > (such as English time) would be a mistake since there are more than > one time standard (I myself have been recently switching over to use > the hexadecimal time standard). Yet using frame numbers would also be > a problem as the TT script might be used with different video > files/streams which have different framerates. I'm not sure what > alternative is left over, but those are two important things to > consider... > > lists@wiltgen.net wrote: > >>Johnb@screen.subtitling.com wrote... >> >> >> >>>FileX is indexed against the timecode that is stored as VBI data on TapeX. >>>So unlike SMIL - the media are separate - subtitles in one - video and >>>audio on another. >>> >>> >> >>You can forget about SMIL, although I think that understanding what it is >>a useful prerequisite for anyone who wants to contribute. >> >>Unless I'm missing something, Proposal 0.0 works just the way you would like >>-- subtitles in one file, video and audio in another. >> >> >> >>>In practice, the broadcaster will want to show adverts. These can occur >>>at **any time** during the broadcast, and may differ from showing to >>>showing... >>> >>> >> >>In my previous post I described how this would work. (Please let me know >>if the explanation didn't make seise.) >> >> >> >>>Subtitles are frame accurate for lip synching. >>> >>> >> >>I've explained a few times why time (rather than frame-based timecode) >>must be used. As two examples, the TT should still work when taking a >>24fps film source to NTSC, or to the web via a QuickTime movie with a >>default timebase of 600 units/second whose video content is encoded at >>12fps. >> >> >> >>>I can conceive of other situations where the assumption of 1 sec per sec >>>is invalid. >>> >>> >> >>I know you're not serious, but I don't get the joke. >> >> >> >>>...timebases can always be converted into a single format. >>> >>> >> >>Exactly, and that single format is time. >> >>-- Charles Wiltgen >> <http://playbacktime.com/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 23:03:41 UTC