search for: retime

Hi: Is there a way to retime a flow in order to compensate for jitter? For example, RTP has timestamps which would enable retiming. Or you could be simpler and just make the exit interval equal to the average intrance interval. I''m sure there are even better ways that I just haven''t thought of. -- Law...

...for nomogram and calculate total points and probability *in original data set* used for building the nomogram. *My question is how I get the formula for calculating the survival probability for this nomogram. Then I can use this formula to do validation by using other data set. * f1 <- cph(Surv(retime,dfs) ~ age+her2+t_stage+n_stage+er+cytcyt+Cyt_PCDK2 , data=data11, surv=T, x=T, y=T, time.inc=5) surv<- Survival(f1) surv10 <- function(lp) surv(10,lp) surv5 <- function(lp) surv(5,lp) quant <- Quantile(f1) at.surv <- c(0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9) nom<- nomogram(f1, conf.int=...

...Dr. Harrell's rms package to make a nomogram. I was able to make a beautiful one. However, I want to change 5-year survival probability to 5-year failure probability. I couldn?t get hazard rate from Hazard(f1) because I used cph for the model. Here is my code: library(rms) f1 <- cph(Surv(retime,dfs) ~ age+her2+t_stage+n_stage+er+grade+cytcyt+Cyt_PCDK2 , data=data11, surv=T, x=T, y=T, time.inc=5) surv<- Survival(f1) haz<- Hazard(f1) Here is the Error in UseMethod("Hazard") : no applicable method for 'Hazard' applied to an object of class "c('cph', &...

...m using Dr. Harrell's design package to make a nomogram. I was able to make a beautiful one. However, I want to change 5-year survival probability to 5-year failure probability. I couldn?t get hazard rate from Hazard(f1) because I used cph for the model. Here is my code: f1 <- cph(Surv(retime,dfs) ~ age+her2+t_stage+n_stage+er+grade+cytcyt+Cyt_PCDK2 , data=data11, surv=T, x=T, y=T, time.inc=5) surv<- Survival(f1) haz<- Hazard(f1) Here is the Error in UseMethod("Hazard") : no applicable method for 'Hazard' applied to an object of class "c('cph',...

...ove the code generator to notice and handle this, I added this note to the x86 backend with some details: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090202/073254.html This is a long-known issue, but a great example of it. > Two other points of interest: > > . I just retimed in x64 and could not reproduce the difference so > this only > afflicts x86 and not x64 as I had said previously. Right, this occurs because of the x86-32 ABI. x86-64 should not be affected. > . Pulling the whole benchmark into a single compilation unit changes > the > perf...

...around. What you are seeing is correct. This also raises a few important points. When multiplexing streams together, it is important to use the time related to the GP64 (dt) value and not the GPH+L. Multiplexing based on dt will minimize buffering and latency issues. Likewise, if one wishes to retime a dirac stream (ie, make it start at time zero), the lowest presentation time (derived from GPH+L) must be found, then the difference between them subtracted from all dt and pt values. > Questions: > > Are the reported granulepos of the packetno 2 and 3 correct? The dt > value looks la...

Hi, I'm wondering if the Dirac granulepos parsing in liboggz and display in the oggz tools is currently correct, as I'd like to do a release of these soon. A couple of days ago David Schleef mentioned there were some problems. David, is that currently true (ie. since David Flynn's recent updates to support Dirac), and if so could you please explain what the problems are, or point me