Btw, I just confirmed that our existing ag-vic code does not crash in the presence of the OM h.263 streams. It was an incorrect condition in how ag-vic was determining the H.263 frame size (the custom flag was wrong in ag-vic). I've entirely removed H.263 codecs from ag-vic, so ag-vic now just drops these packets like any other codec it doesn't recognize. It's not great, but it's better than crashing :-) --Ivan PS -- This will be in the next version of the AGTk in the spring release.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Swan Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:07 AM To: Gurcharan S. Khanna Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] H263
Gurcharan S. Khanna wrote:
can you even do 640x480 with non-omvic? i thought i tried some time ago and never got that to work for some reason.
as long as you use h.261, all you can do is 352x288 or 176x144 (also called cif or qcif). this isn't a shortcoming of vic, it is part of the h.261 standard. the bitstream syntax simply doesn't have a way to specify arbitrary frame resolution, all it has is a single bit to select cif or qcif.
there are various patches floating around to implement h.263 in uclvic which could probably be applied to agvic without too much trouble but as far as i know, omvic is the only one being actively worked on...
-Andrew