Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

[Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]>]

On 12/02/2013 09:43 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>  > I think it is highly relevant whether the mandatory-to-implement
> codec supports two people in typical German households communicate via
> video in sign language...
>  
> [BA] This isn't just an issue for Germany.   An inability to support
> sign language would be "highly relevant" to compliance with the proposed
> Section 255/508 revision in the US. 
>  
> From:
> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf,
> Section 408.8:
>  
> "408.8 Video Communication.  Where ICT that provides two way voice
> communication includes real time video functionality, the quality of the
> video shall be sufficient to support communication using sign language."

I believe this is a moot point for H.261, as even at relatively low
bitrates, in an unoptimized configuration, it can produce sufficiently
high quality to clearly convey a person communicating with sign
language.  Please see my recent post entitled, "H.261 encoding samples
at typical bitrates - sign language example" or the actual examples here
(please see the text file that explains the real rates that ffmpeg
ended-up using):

http://media.basilgohar.com/rtcweb/

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org