IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video resolution SHOULDs (Re: resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01)

Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net> Fri, 02 December 2011 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <giles@thaumas.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B1121F899D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:18:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFS3yiKUM2CU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:18:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0126521F893C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfy13 with SMTP id fy13so3075934vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:18:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.92.210 with SMTP id co18mr150488vdb.111.1322867897246; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:18:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.84.213 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:18:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [184.71.166.126]
In-Reply-To: <201111300518.pAU5I3SJ021725@mtv-core-2.cisco.com>
References: <201111171620.pAHGKK9M016833@mtv-core-3.cisco.com> <CAFA60D4.57C9%cary.bran.standards@gmail.com> <CAEW_Rkv-ToWmNjbuJsVOdEE=P5+s28GUceYDGQ=EcQO3XZz=Vw@mail.gmail.com> <4ED53736.4030703@alvestrand.no> <CAEW_Rkvo3ho6QrhP6cX0cGvOAKK6KZ=J38ZUjR8pzr+SwsZOiw@mail.gmail.com> <201111300518.pAU5I3SJ021725@mtv-core-2.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:18:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEW_RktRWnzBkUgb8KLKuG06u8sbK5ADJDdrRLhnKBreOG=wFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net>
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video resolution SHOULDs (Re: resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:18:19 -0000

On 29 November 2011 21:18, James M. Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> wrote:

> not meaning to open a can of worms, but what still requires interlaced
> video? Most new things convert I to P, but less of these convert P to I.

I guess I didn't respond to this, but what Harald said is a good
summary. There are certainly still interlaced display devices in
active use. For example, the screen in our video conferencing room
only does 1080i, not 1080p, but the issue is more going the other
direction.

There are reasons to produce interlaced content still; for high-motion
sources (like sport) the additional temporal resolution can give a
better experience without the (mostly unsupported) overhead of 60p.
That said, interlaced media support shouldn't be a requirement for
this draft.

 -r

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email