[XviD-devel] Profile@Levels

[ProfDrMorph]

Hi,

> on the long run, we should set MPEG-4 Profile and Level correctly. This
> are simple checks, based on input data, but I didn't want to include
> before release of 1.0, okay?
sounds like a very good idea. I thought XviD would already do that. ;) The
only part of the source I know is the old lumi masking code ( and I even
failed to understand this part correctly at first when I tried to contribute
to
XviD's development ;) ).

> Still, what should we do with "illegal" combinations, like too high
> resolution with Simple Profile? Switch to a compatible combination,
> like Main Profile at some Level? That could cause decoders to refuse
> decoding, although it's just a problem of memory, not of features.
I suggest that XviD should by default be MPEG4-compatible meaning
switching to a higher profile. Somewhere well hidden in the Advanced
Options ( maybe the VfW interface should display a user warning the
first time the user wants to access the Advanced Options ) could be
an option which allows the user to change XviD's behaviour to creating
"incorrect" bitstreams when memory (resolution) is the only problem.

bye
Daniel "ProfDrMorph" Gritzner

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph Lampert" <chl at math.uni-bonn.de>
To: <xvid-devel at xvid.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 10:47 PM
Subject: [XviD-devel] Profile at Levels


>
> Hi,
>
> on the long run, we should set MPEG-4 Profile and Level correctly. This
> are simple checks, based on input data, but I didn't want to include
> before release of 1.0, okay?
>
> Still, what should we do with "illegal" combinations, like too high
> resolution with Simple Profile? Switch to a compatible combination,
> like Main Profile at some Level? That could cause decoders to refuse
> decoding, although it's just a problem of memory, not of features.
>
> gruel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> XviD-devel mailing list
> XviD-devel at xvid.org
> http://list.xvid.org/mailman/listinfo/xvid-devel
>