[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.9. Time - opening arguments.1

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:41:38 -0800

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 02:24:44PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> UST has defined, externally meaningful units (usecs or nanosecs) and
> is guaranteed monotonic. If you two events of any kind with two UST

If it is guaranteed linear, then you don't need a UST timestamp per event.

> You know that the video frame N was drawn at UST U2. You know that the
> audio frame S was processed (whatever that means) at UST U1. You know
> that N and S should have some defined temporal relationship, measured
> in the same units as UST, and inferrable from knowing video and audio
> frame rates. You can therefore sync the two streams. Without UST, you
> can't do this in any even vaguely simple way.

I can grok that.  Finally, I grok that.  BuT now I don't see why you need
UST per event, if it is linear, it has a defined relationship to the sample

UST(sample) = UST_base_offset + sample * UST_per_sample

Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: