How many MB would you spend for extra safety on a 800 MB rip ?

[ChristianHJW]

Hi,

i guess the question is self explaining. We are finally trying to move things about extra header protection in matroska, and were wondering how many MBs people were ready to spend for extra file safety ?

[avih]

how about giving it a default of 1%-3%, but letting users select more or less?

[Soulhunter]

how about giving it a default of 1%-3%, but letting users select more or less?
Or adding some sort of protection "Levels" !!!

Level 1 (Low) = 1% - 3%

Level 2 (Normal) = 5% - 10%

Level 3 (High) = 10% - 25%

Or something similar...

Bye

[alexnoe]

Extra header protection?

Nothing is easier than that: Store them twice or more often...

[bond]

most people would take 20mb? only for the damn headers? with 20mb we could have error recovery :D

[mf]

If matroska is so l33t, 500KB should be more than enough :D.

[mikeX]

the way i see things at the moment, if you 're going for a 800MB rip you are either pretty desperate (so you'll need the less possible overhead), you just need a few more space for that extra quality you 'd really fancy (so you don't care that much about overhead, just the best protection) or your encoding came out a tad oversized and you just don't have the time to do it all again(same as the previous case) (or if you just really like pushing everything to it's limit :devil: )

so the best solution imho would still be to be able to choose between some prefixed values (so that you still leave it to the devs to decide what exact figures work best),e.g. the way soulhunter suggested

i went for 5 MB on the vote though, cause i get desperate some times :rolleyes:

[Tuning]

I think 10MB is appropriate.:D

[P0l1m0rph1c]

I think 3 MB should be enough for header backup&protection. But that should also be configurable, like soulhunter said, imho.

[bond]

damn guys

error correction is already possible with mpeg-4 bitstreams as i wrote here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65646)

with full error correction (which means as good as all errors get corrected (not only detected!)) it will need 7% of the file, which are ~40mb on a 600mb movie

i guess if you dont use Reversible VLC you will get a significant drop in the overhead (maybe around 20mb?)

[virux]

@bond
what about the audio part?
edit: oops sorry :( i didnt read your post thoroughly, this wont happen again nxt time

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by bond damn guys
error correction is already possible with mpeg-4 bitstreams as i wrote here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65646)
with full error correction (which means as good as all errors get corrected (not only detected!)) it will need 7% of the file, which are ~40mb on a 600mb movie

bond, i really dont want to stress our good relationship, but not so long ago, if anybody from the matroska would have dared to jump into an OGM and/or MP4 thread stating '... now thats possible with matroska already ...' .... oh my, we were striked for that :D ....

We know MP4 can 'do it already' ( even if these mechanisms are prepared for streaming, not for file protection on CD/DVDs ), so we have to support extra file protection also, and because of that we were asking the users how much extra space they would be ok to spend.

Never mind ;) ....

[bond]

chris, you have a little bit of a persecution complex ;)

if you wouldnt have such a complex you would have read my thread about mpeg-4 error recovery and would have realised that the error recovery is stored on bitstream level...

the only one who talked about mp4 is you :D

[alexnoe]

chris, you have a little bit of a persecution complexI hope you do not seriously claimif anybody from the matroska would have dared to jump into an OGM and/or MP4 thread stating '... now thats possible with matroska already ...' .... oh my, we were striked for thatthis to be wrong, because you would make kinda fool of yourself then.

Your mp4 bitstream error protection certainly works nicely if the first 2 kb of a new cluster, probably containing its base timecode, is b0rked :confused:

[bond]

Originally posted by alexnoe
I hope you do not seriously claimof course not :rolleyes:

[Teegedeck]

Hehe; how about adding a feature to mkmerge that lets the user enter the number of MBs that he's willing to sacrifice for that individual file he's going to mux, and depending on that value there's more or less recovery information stored? Flexible, is it not? Hey, just trying to be a nuisance... :p

[unmei]

i'm quite convinced it will come down to that sometimes.
However i expect it not to be as simple, because there could be different safety mechanisms, like header repetition and recovery information in each cluster. So there would still be the question which ones to use to reach a certain amount of MB of reovery data. And some mechanisms like recovery info in clusters would take a fixed amount of space per cluster, or per frame or per whatever.

Now you could for example give the options "use cluster level protection" and "use header repetition to fill up to X MB of recovery data".

("disclaimer":I did not follow the in-detail discussions on error recovery and this are just my thoughts without much prior knowledge :p)

[ChristianHJW]

Guys, please help me bugging alexnoe to look more into this. I was trying to convince him he si the right guy for that, but it seems i was not successful yet ;) ...