Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality

Maik Merten <> Fri, 15 November 2013 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E40311E80F6 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yBdof718sJ-S for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5B311E8109 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id mz13so1493678bkb.2 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:46 -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=a4xeeP+N6dFK/q4Mgqy7Z88t02DSudCP2U6u0BS3m/o=; b=e25PkEyyDZ9f08GVhYgz9Vedgaih0EgL2gUKZxrdQrg9KXkORzYmf7C5KciNBn1E7l JRkyUeZMv/fiKY54X5e+6seikMWr2MO3jcdwevT69PVpYMqlDi7SM4YaRh8pwEWTz7rj gwNIVYbeV2ErAUt9O82ffRJpio4pF6tZz9Lyh5B/F7GZKEQCmmm5IdoU8mZnifytqdh/ 7cwo1vpsvro/zet3n6udRUgos3Zqysr0kIlND33A7RrQpLUoNOWjkbtVWQ9A9EwP1JnN 5bXS8QaZDYLbHcYowX38yJ/nx8VNMfgxrh8sst/yTHt2x46wjDZkPN9JGDfwAboEuZGM 1xHw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id qn10mr252514bkb.46.1384501126781; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id zl3sm5992267bkb.4.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:39:59 +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: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 15 Nov 2013 07:38:58 -0000

Am 15.11.2013 06:39, schrieb Monty Montgomery:
> Stephan just implied strongly they haven't, despite the 20 years.

Would sure be nice what those disputes Stephan mentions are actually about.

After all, a major premise of IVC (one of MPEG's efforts to get a RF 
codec) is that MPEG-1 video is considered free by now and I see some 
people being active there that are quite IP-aware.

MPEG-2, in contrast, is clearly a worthy target for disputes, being 
mandatory for DVD and BluRay, and there, e.g., appear to be a swath of 
somewhat "meh" IP claims targeting exactly that application and being 
filed or re-filed or re-re-filed long after the coding technology itself 
was ratified.

I see stuff like

"This is a continuation of application Ser. No. *****, filed Apr. **, 
2009, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. ******, filed Jun. 
**, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. *****, which is a continuation of 
application Ser. No. *******, filed Apr. **, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 
*****, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. ******, filed 
Jan. **, 1994, now abandoned, which is entitled to the priority filing 
date of Japanese application ****** filed on Jan. **, 1993, the entirety 
all of which are incorporated herein by reference."

It's unclear to me what this *means* regarding the usability of old MPEG 

> And, BTW, I was serious when I mentioned Theora earlier as well.

Theora would clearly be preferable over H.261 or MPEG-1. It has a nice, 
widely deployed and tested implementation with BSD-style license, a 
well-written specification, has better coding efficiency than H.261 or 
MPEG-1 and is quite frugal regarding computation.