Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

David Singer <singer@apple.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <singer@apple.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 8392D1AE3AD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:23:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 oytRqY0IEy43 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:23:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207591AE351 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:23:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Received: from relay8.apple.com ([17.128.113.102]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MWN00E5E57B30B1@mail-out.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:23:36 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807166-b7f8b6d000001072-05-528eb218de74
Received: from spicerack.apple.com (spicerack.apple.com [17.128.115.40]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay8.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id A8.A1.04210.812BE825; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from singda.apple.com (singda.apple.com [17.197.32.11]) by spicerack.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0MWN00AXW57CK940@spicerack.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:23:36 -0800 (PST)
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7ED@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:23:35 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <E62E1CAF-546D-4A0E-9339-D03D6C0BC1AE@apple.com>
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7ED@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
To: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCsoSuxqS/I4M8/MYu1/9rZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVseLMa+aCTsGK2z1vGBsYn/B2MXJySAiYSHTff84IYYtJXLi3 nq2LkYtDSGAyk8TuS2+YIZzVTBI/zl0HquLgYBbQk7h/UQukgRfIvNV8nxnEFhYwk/hwv4Md xGYTUJV4MOcY2FBOgQSJq++/gcVZgOInO3+D1TMDxZcdOsQIYWtLPHl3gRVipo1E8+NTYLaQ QLzEi3PNLCC2CNCuL0s+MkEcKiux+/l35gmMArMQLpqF5KJZSKYuYGRexShQlJqTWGmhl1hQ kJOql5yfu4kRHHaFaTsYm5ZbHWIU4GBU4uHdYdkXJMSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmE12MDUIg3JbGy KrUoP76oNCe1+BCjNAeLkjhvxxqglEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgZGhyWP5jwWXbVsl3q5o blTV2zKh/eqVvFrdTWtLCl6GRLaGz7szMdexsfGORf2xfX7XZskFv2bc8H5Vfdii8tArZl+5 P8q5H8kWf2TOYMVbLVfxMqYpr++KJnPKvlPuwp+iJium7uSMya4P5W18G6kzde8zr+iF/xlL p3Xln6oW8cm6tY7xhxJLcUaioRZzUXEiAPNSjGI3AgAA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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 01:23:45 -0000

On Nov 21, 2013, at 17:15 , Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>; wrote:

> David your point is absolutely correct.  H.261 would be completely unusable.  The max resolution is 352x288 not to mention many other algorithm  issues that make the quality even at low qp's unacceptable especially on a mobile device where the camera is anything but steady
> 
> The fact that h.261 is getting so much attention is distressing  

Yes, that’s my gut.  If we ask our engineers to implement it (I mean we in the sense of members of the WebRTC group) I am fairly sure that we will get a mix of “you want me to do WHAT?”, “are you insane?”, “what century are YOU from?”, and the like.

Can someone remind me why classic H.263 (with possibly the minor tweaks for picture size limits etc.) is problematic?

> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 06:57 PM
> To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
> 
> 
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 13:58 , Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
>> On 21 November 2013 13:55, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>> <basilgohar@librevideo.org>; wrote:
>>> It's no more crappy than having G.711 as a fallback audio codec for
>>> legacy purposes,
>> 
>> Actually, it is.  G.711 is close to free to implement.  And, despite
>> it actually being crappy, there's still a lot of it around.
> 
> 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).
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.