Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
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 9F6901AE3BD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:53:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=no
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 ffRquL8ll56f for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x232.google.com (mail-vb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364021ADFB6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 10so1083506vbe.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:53:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=f/zcYLrlxe3RLojdToGXDiZ+CLbtmgI4bXyH5/Dg9B4=; b=dP/49C7Qni9Cq6sH3rw2FbczvL6h4j4AQTLgwh39V/x10HnblbILwsYH58J93ffI4y NoDU3v1gXh6wWi7OpNk3sOXvZw6np9J9wTQ41ABtDc6kqKCEQlUCsEjCMlj+qphHyMvy Yj7l+p7S2ReqtocdsAJMbIHqZcuF4kBRnhXhL5I8BvGWMdrZpDhjKV+6sqqoZ5grKM5z xpX8SLHCMI+tmmTPADqhUVJMe1oiMqmqzXIIsOYHc8LuvqKJIEdfZ2DAUSAmyCIY4Yv2 lIlkdJIQdICtrjQ5WnRRn7BcD/CxGyHe9IozxeYG7Z4e9RJJUokJofrp6HGAv0RPDrC6 1lbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=f/zcYLrlxe3RLojdToGXDiZ+CLbtmgI4bXyH5/Dg9B4=; b=YrGPx/6XcnWrdK0f0OLlLHlkoHU3SqYufxUgCYVY2lGDaJcR+CVUmpH1QljgLBGwBr RK1ExbWcRokCqiiNLE0/tcAs4Yonp/HNMpD8K8K5SP3udwITNKocGwCV9DsmEok62L38 R/q8wBUM/9QZnE7psfANaL7kwPmxU0tLd6xVkM2HPw0fmNfeyAS28ueJuhmoGB4C9e2S M2AXe4BKHIb9ZbyaRY9VS9cF2l+rZNFbi5fJo5fw42Vl9+WSYb6McG0ayMrE8Kt2tYZI TMNKOqdx0xJQWFLGi4tFFTBpVl2RlYKxcRuWJiW4v9IsAl4e0YD82KU3p/uPcRCrBSkc 369A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4CH/2fBZdotGZEwGszjv1/g/wZuTj0gChLgy9RvtuBuYL/ezkopuh6oqNzsim/IR9Yoo2TEnaPcTfgekKk88swtXWyANHjy3d56NMZUSNyr5b5cDEXh4PPOtMBXgi+3AxnznO57wKONVHT9SMeh9W4mKTvh0sYeUMdQGjimb/l+XjSPvucu1vEreutq9GizkCji01
X-Received: by 10.58.23.33 with SMTP id j1mr2670621vef.27.1385139223920; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:53:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.110.101 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:53:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMwTW+jO-BQh00fmH-ueCNsVsHbHRCiwHt6X0jFbho-B89ag=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <CEB43444.4986F%stevek@stevek.com> <CAMwTW+jO-BQh00fmH-ueCNsVsHbHRCiwHt6X0jFbho-B89ag=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:53:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0fwSrsT4CmTUP8cK7TJTA3J7LqDN0bbtNT4DxnQS6HnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bryandonnovan@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b339df96818de04ebc6dbb6
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:53:53 -0000

For 1:many with MCU, I don't understand why you wouldn't do #2, i.e.
transcode. As stated earlier, the bandwidth costs of using an inefficient
codec (which any MCU service will incur) exceed the CPU cost of transcode.


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:47 AM, <bryandonnovan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lots of uses will be 1:1 calls, and maybe 30% fallback applies in this
> case.  My use of WebRTC involves 1:many group calls in the browser with an
> MCU.  For 1:many, the options are 1) fallback to common codec and 2)
> transcode.  So, for 1:many we can say that the chance of using the fallback
> codec is 100%.  Assuming IE and Safari actually ship WebRTC.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Steve Kann <stevek@stevek.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Mo,
>>
>> I think we all agree that choosing H.264 or VP8 would be better, but it
>> is clear that neither option today has consensus.    Circumstances could
>> change in the future, but it seems that OpenH264 was not enough to change
>> that circumstance.
>>
>> I think that where your scenario might go astray is that users won’t
>> associate their poor experience with “WebRTC”, or “that web stuff” — they
>> will associate it with the brand of the service which they are using at the
>> time.
>>
>> So, for example, if Facebook builds video chat using WebRTC, and they do
>> no transcoding, 30% of users might associate their poor video with
>> Facebook, but most of them won’t call it “that web shit” — they would say
>> Facebook video sucks.
>>
>> Of course, Facebook could decide to transcode 30% of the time, in which
>> case the user would have a different experience.
>>
>> Facebook obviously just being used as an example service which might
>> implement WebRTC video.
>>
>> -SteveK
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
>> Date: Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 9:17 PM
>> To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
>> Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [rtcweb] H.261
>>
>> On 11/21/13 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>>
>>
>> Assume this wins and all obey. Chrome does H.261+VP8, Firefox does
>> H.261+H.264+VP8, IE does H.261+H.264, Safari does H.261+H.264. According to
>> various (incredibly extrapolated, possibly inaccurate and sometimes
>> conflicting) sources [1] on who uses what browser, the chance of H.261
>> fallback is a whopping 30% [2]. Not the minor insignificant case some had
>> assumed.
>>
>> How will these users react to H.261 QCIF/CIF compared to what they use
>> today, say Skype for example? "This web shit really sucks. I’m going back
>> to Skype and never trying it again." Is that the first (and perhaps last)
>> impression we want from users that try webrtc? Those arguing crappy video
>> is better than no video are ignoring the critical importance of first
>> impressions. While some may accept crappy video as usable, many more may be
>> permanently turned off and tune out even faster than if they got only
>> (good) audio. It’s not as if webrtc is the only game in town. Users have
>> options, so it needs to be competitive with competitive technology which
>> has already set the bar.
>>
>> We previously narrowed the options down to H.264 and VP8 for good reasons
>> over the course of this excruciatingly long decision. Reopening discarded
>> tangents like H.261 does not move us forward as a workgroup, and certainly
>> does not move webrtc forward as a technology.
>>
>> Mo
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
>> [2] H.261 fallback % = 2 x VP8-only% x H.264-only% = 2 x Chrome% x (IE% +
>> Safari%)
>>
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>