Re: [rtcweb] resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01

["Bran, Cary" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ralph,


On 11/17/11 5:30 PM, "Ralph Giles" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 17 November 2011 17:10, Aron Rosenberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I would suggest dropping 720x480 as it is neither 16:9 or 4:3 ratio,
>>but a
>> non-standard 3:2 ratio.
>
>720x480 is a standard SD broadcast/DVD-Video resolution. With
>non-square pixels and overscan, it can represent either 4:3 or 16:9.
>Both proposed baseline codecs in this draft support non-square pixels,
>since a lot of video is in this format.
>
>I don't know how useful it is to have this as a SHOULD, but I would
>ask why the corresponding PAL resolution (576 lines) isn't also
>included if this one is considered useful.

I have added this to the 02 version as a SHOULD.
>
>> From a camera perspective 1024x768 and 800x60[0] are
>> not well supported in video modes.
>
>That's true, but these are common VGA screen resolutions. I think it's
>useful to have them for presentations and screencasting. 1024x768 has
>been a standard format for conference presentations for more than a
>decade, and 800x600 is a useful fallback.
>
>As to how this SHOULD should be read, I think the point here is that
>while some devices have fixed formats due to hardware constraints,
>others (like a desktop browser) are quite flexible, so it's helpful to
>have a list of common resolutions implementers can choose to offer in
>the absence of other constraints, and to test against.

Stole a bit of this verbiage and integrated it into the 02 version.

>
> -r
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb