Reimar Döffinger <[email protected]> added the comment: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:59:37PM +0000, tbart wrote: > I am not much of programmer, but may I ask why a proper *MXF* parser > would be a bad solution for parsing MXFs?
If you ask me: Because from a technical point even though some may call it "MXF" they aren't. At least no more than a MP3 file with ID3 metadata tags is a "ID3-file". > It seems like adapting the mentioned patch to possibly not use indexes > - I understand that transport streams may not have proper indexes - > mandatorily would be a better solution. Those are two completely independent things really (well, I think). Thing is _I_ do not have much time to review this, plus I am not the maintainer so I don't have the final say for the MXF-specific code anyway. > This would be a large step into the professional video industry sector, > taking away market share of proprietary products (which I would really > appreciate, given the number of broken media parsers in commercial > products...) This would be more helpful if you said what _exactly_ is hindering that currently. All MXF files I came about so far were playable with FFmpeg (though clip-wrapped DV currently needs manual intervention). ________________________________________________ FFmpeg issue tracker <[email protected]> <https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue974> ________________________________________________
