6 May
2008
6 May
'08
12:50 p.m.
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 16:35 +0200, Malte Steiner wrote:
You missed my precise point. VideoJACK is like the *first* of my two
examples (MIDI "sync") and not like the second (Video frame onset
information).
There has never been any disagreement with the idea that videojack is a
cool idea. What there has been is a widespread feeling in the JACK
developer community that the video JACK stuff has been done
suboptimally, in ways that don't reflect a good understanding of JACK's
design, and without bothering to actually ask us "how should we do
this?" I'd love to see videojack be a part of mainline JACK, but its not
going to happen with the current set of patches that have been proposed.
To be honest, I was suprised that everyone else at the JACK "summit" at
LAC2008 seemed to agree with me about that.
--p
* VIDEO sync
- information allowing a JACK client to know the precise
audio sample at which a video frame begins (not implemented by any
freely distributed JACK backend)
video-jack is about providing something like MIDI sync but for video
*data*.
Videojack is much more exciting then that. Its about plumbing different
videoprocessing applications together, piping the actual frames like
Jack does with audio. That would be a boost for Linux as a multimedia OS.