Alex Bennee wrote:

<snip>
>>
>> Yes, in theory you could have each "sample" inside it's own mdat if you
>> wanted.
>
> That would be pathalogical. At the moment I've a fixed size array in
> the codec that will deal with up to 10 mdat atoms in a file. As we
> can't really dynamically allocate re-sizeable memory I think the best
> that can be done is size it according to what has been seen in the wild.

do you really care about the mdat atoms? The offset data for the samples is
not mdat relative, so you don't need to keep the mdat info in memory, do you?
Received on 2009-05-06