Andrew Church wrote: > [...] > >if nothing else, the NUV sample you provided includes LZO-compressed >frames, so saying LZO is "not a requirement" is pushing things! > > >
Aargh! I've just realised that this statement probably explains the wierd "jumpy" video I got when I tried that backporting trick into 1.0.2. *Some* of my .nuv file's video frames must have been vanilla, and those are the ones that I got in my output stream. The rest were LZO encoded, and my hacked decoder skipped them! Your "skipped frames recovery" code then neatly filled in the gaps, and - well - you saw the results I'm sure. Steve.
