Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.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 85B351ADDBD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:08:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 9yf5gfx6JNQY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22a.google.com (mail-oa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2481C1AC3DA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i4so17566247oah.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:08:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QWUsHrZa3Hzj8Io2fdts4een+EHV2HgarMuXjyQ5/H0=; b=JQHMqCCkGqK29QspYUsY4XjwytDtT9+dBkeHm+vwbM+5Bzb45JSanWD3Puu9vBuOK9 r8oWyFuchKZTPSuiQeXHvul2p7GIT3TWr9K9iFzdVmsfZ0WsPDvcubaa9GxB7a8pkXzL nzxVQQzwktjq5nHyfTHVsOa5GclrO2yPDCjnisTNAZZQ5hHsrMfPSLz8jyQvSe4TKvd0 SPTgm1BGQT9gaRn6CHgoRz7BoyxqBNcDjR3nuVcYCefG+9q0ceAtIueUbYq3T7+TQfxc sBXFq+FNONyhlFYwV4kS/jYoKfiYPu6v4XsantoCe4QU/G1vhXBE7XNjs5qqdKWqjeyg v0zw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.45.10 with SMTP id i10mr8040277oem.56.1386191314818; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.68.106 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.68.106 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:08:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <529F2892.50803@alvestrand.no>
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> <CEC277EC.AB897%stewe@stewe.org> <65ECB9F5-49F1-492A-A5DC-A4EE02C37092@apple.com> <529F2892.50803@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:08:34 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mvkpfUEFTJbJqgeVttH_dg7ttpPgueHoHB_7_y0-t09g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149d1f8e91dda04ecbbd035
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.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: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:08:40 -0000

Such an "iframe"-only codec has interesting properties for seeking and
video analysis, too, so might even be of general interest as a supported
publishing format in the <video> element and certainly for recording.

Silvia.
On 5 Dec 2013 00:05, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

>  One interesting aspect of Motion JPEG is that several cameras implement
> it when they have enough resolution that naked YUV is going to overload the
> USB bus, but they don't want to spend the silicon (or licensing) to go all
> the way to real video codecs. So there are software decoder implementations
> around.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_JPEG#Digital_cameras
>
> On 12/04/2013 02:25 AM, David Singer wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 18:36 , Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:
>
>
>  1. A reasonably well tuned H.261 codec (including pre/post filters etc.)
> will under almost any circumstance produce a better picture than MJPEG.
> The intra coding tools of H.261 have a lot in common with JPEG, and H.261
> offers inter picture prediction on top of that.
>
>
> That may be true, but everyone has a JPEG implementation, its status is clear, and it does convey pictures.  The RTP carriage is trivial, error resilience is excellent (all I pictures).  Yes, you get low frame rates or small pictures, but it’s a fallback.
>
> Motion JPEG is not as bad a choice as all that.  Anyone could implement it, and we could terminate this endless discussion with a decision that could, in fact, be respected by implementations.
>
> I still doubt whether people would consider it worthwhile spending engineer time and so on, on developing an H.261 solution, whereas JPEG (as a codec) is still in heavy use elsewhere.
>
> Nonetheless, I still think H.263 deserves a more careful look.  I know Stephan is negative, but so far, he’s the only one.  For those who DON’T currently implement H.263, could/would you?
>
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing listrtcweb@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>