Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Maik Merten <> Fri, 22 November 2013 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E9F1ADFEE for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s9ZNkLP_mGAB for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::233]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940611ADBE5 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b15so630307eek.24 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9qkwbwGl/WgyVuCP2zbSZfpSlPvUwwMJvJJOYhgV7WY=; b=Y7lnZblqm/dddh/reuspiPTO/2XurzFYx0aVFJabMOutdCfvLJ6keWfeXLFDguNtP4 WXzl/okYfReACWZAe9C81+n2LbXbtisne3J5pCFGl23B4uD9xEQ91wKu3sARvMiQjehx FgW8FQrmi/s7O0OA83IIPU8Pka08IFcJ4bDkF0pDA52vH/MlnS+yERhAWygAz3LMZct6 +/71ZpKEfGzPSdWYfsEfM5SJBCCYS2Kvwziy+JC6Q1+oz9FNFnzWIu71v7RbyI1RmpD9 SQIZ8blqGYlb1TAGa6lxd3l1poV8CiBf3vaXTvf4/Ax4MSlRlooKTjVK/h1DhC+lysOY c40w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h2mr17945476eem.34.1385142206943; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i1sm79307885eeg.0.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:43:21 +0100
From: Maik Merten <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:43:36 -0000

Am 22.11.2013 01:57, schrieb David Singer:
> well, it’s band-limited and hardly compressed, but within those limits it’s OK.  Whereas I seem to recall having trouble getting decent quality out of H.261 no matter what I did with it (but it has been *years* since I used H.261 for  anything, and it’s only because I am an old geezer that I used it at all).

I provided some samples at

I'd say H.261 can do pretty okay-ish at around a Mbps (and is already 
useful, if not pretty, well below that), but pushing to "visually 
lossless" has unfavorable bitrate implications: I have a "normal users 
won't see the difference from the original" encoding of that testing 
sequence (complete with analog noise from the camera preserved), but it 
weighs in at 5 Mbps.

I would love to try out the QuickTime H.261 encoder, btw. Not sure it's 
still shipped, but I understand a *de*coder is still there?