Benoit Steiner benny at
Sat Jul 27 08:44:51 CEST 2002

You don't want to send PS over UDP/IP. This will work only if you have
an exceptionally good network. Many decoders are unable to deal
correctly with packet loss or packet reordering (since this is not
supposed to happen).

Moreover, you need to send a program table on a regular basis. I don't
think this is done today but could be very easily added to the PS->TS
conversion process. Converting the stream also give you the ability to
filter some parts of the stream (subtitles, weird sound tracks, etc...)
therefore decreasing the bandwith requirements. I agree the code is not
quite there, but that was part the original intent. 

The VLS code has been written to deal with TS and is heavily optimized
to deal with fixed size timed packets. It would be really hard to change
that. It would probably be much simpler to fix your conversion problems. 


kvsukesh at wrote:
> thnks for your reply Loic.....
> as cristophe also explained...i know the main threat
> of using PS in UDP is loss of packets would result in
> no new PCR's (or SCR) till the next pack header...
> but if you have noticed ..thses days the players(mpeg
> decoders) are much tolerent to heavy PCR jitters (
> particular a few harware ones )thats why i was poking
> into this idea of PS over UDP.
> actuallu this TS to PS in VLS is giving me some
> playback issues with mpeg1 streams...
> I have not yet looked at the code on how its handled
> ...but if somebody has an idea , it would be really
> appreciated.
> regards
> --- Loïc_Minier <lool at> wrote:
> > kvsukesh at - Fri, Jul 26, 2002:
> >
> > > sorry for not being clear...what i mean is if you
> > send
> > > 7 TS packets in one UDP packet why not take
> > > (7*188)bytes when the stream is PS and send it on
> > UDP.
> >
> >   TS means Transport Stream and is particularly
> > adapted to network
> > diffusion.
> >
> >   It permits a lot more than PS and is designed to
> > be of a simpler use
> > for a lot of tasks.
> >
> >
> >   Imagine you loose a network packet, 188 bytes. In
> > the case of TS, you
> > loose one TS packet, not more and you have a change
> > to resync on the
> > next one. But if you loose 188 bytes of a PS stream,
> > you'll loose at
> > least a full PS packet, that may be about 15 times
> > more IIRC.
> >
> > --
> > Loïc Minier <lool at>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> --
> This is the vls-devel mailing-list, see
> To unsubscribe, please read
> If you are in trouble, please contact <postmaster at>

This is the vls-devel mailing-list, see
To unsubscribe, please read
If you are in trouble, please contact <postmaster at>

More information about the vls-devel mailing list