Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Thu, 05 December 2013 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF8D1AE1B6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:09:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mU3-Kc2qLXKB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7015E1AE11D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool-173-49-144-199.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.144.199]:1572 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1Voi3D-000FJR-HS for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:09:43 -0600
Message-ID: <52A10747.1010005@jesup.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:07:51 -0500
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca> <D4D5920A-E041-42E8-BB1C-1CB24FBEE3F4@nominum.com> <BLU169-W1176AB7AECF0757C380A70E93EE0@phx.gbl> <20131129060936.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <6mkp9912042i9gkg87fc3ji8g9tkv6uqrh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAMm+LwhUB+Ppj8QXNA+=2thi0ZTgymc1G7=XH9jd+agEEAvwHA@mail.gmail.com> <242q99176qj0e4t7as5lu3e7rosd8grn1v@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CABkgnnV1-RG85=ya=SEN-Gk+JH06kbj7SSgjAtzOirAeb7trJg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV1-RG85=ya=SEN-Gk+JH06kbj7SSgjAtzOirAeb7trJg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: r2-chicago.webserversystems.com: authenticated_id: randell@jesup.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 23:09:55 -0000

On 12/2/2013 5:59 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 2 December 2013 14:52, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I myself would not voluntarily watch low-framerate or extremely blurry
>> video if I do not have to.
> I love playing devil's advocate...  But you need to remind yourself
> that a) you do the audio equivalent just about every time you make a
> phone call on the PSTN (which I grant, you might not do, the world is
> moving on), and b) those specific problems can be addressed with the
> application of more bandwidth or by having teeny postage-stamp videos.

Agreed.  And prior experience with hardware videophones on DSL lines 
(128K max up) is that fuzzy is ok, even errors are ok (if recovery is 
fast), but framerate rules for user perception of conversation. QCIF 
30FPS @ 40-60Kbps was perceived by users as "better" than CIF @ 10fps @ 
150Kbps (more or less), though it has 1/2 -1/3 or less bits-per-pixel, 
so long as you don't scale up too far (scaled up to 70+% of a 7" LCD 
(~854x480ish) was ok, 3-4x scale).  That may be an extreme example, but 
you get the idea.

-- 
Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com