Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D75221F857A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.865
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.384, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYs8DQ8vQZAo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BC121F8573 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q48IZtLj015991 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 20:35:55 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.45]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Tue, 8 May 2012 20:35:55 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 20:35:52 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
Thread-Index: Ac0tOnUc4pBpWmeiQRCSA+pbDhupRAADoXug
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE23305F970@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5B26F813B14D224999A508377061EDBBB1215C@EX2K10MB1.vb.loc> <A9FB11DB-8617-4ED6-BDB4-689FD5E7C0C7@softarmor.com> <20120504104446.2d7b2715@lminiero-acer> <CAOHm=4scg-+QnU2g_Tbmc1c615rrRO=oiUCAQ3nL4JORU+3Zmg@mail.gmail.com> <4FA3E48E.1050204@freedesktop.org> <BLU169-W20EE1AD0881F6C8F48B31932C0@phx.gbl> <CAOJ7v-0=MxAYGjxEyRcizfNYMnDJw6XiHoVuCzmnznFUy2YncA@mail.gmail.com> <4FA94E5E.4000102@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FA94E5E.4000102@mozilla.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 08 May 2012 18:35:58 -0000

I suspect the key question is being missed here to make the arguments look more attractive.

Most mobile devices (at least those on 3GPP standards) trying to do anything other than RTCWEB with their screens and cameras will need to support H.264 anyway.

So the discussion needs to be around what are the pros and cons of supporting both VP8 and H.264 on the same mobile, as opposed to only having to support H.264.

Regards

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Timothy B. Terriberry
Sent: 08 May 2012 17:49
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF

Justin Uberti wrote:
> This "SW encoding chews battery" claim is often mentioned, but in a
> video chat, the power draw from the screen and network are often 10x the
> CPU power draw, which is typically < 1W (for ARM). So there is very
> little impact on talk time between HW and SW encode.
>
> Mobile devices are often limited in terms of what resolutions they can
> encode in software, because they have less overall compute power than
> PCs. In my experience, that is the factor to consider, not battery life.

Even if they could encode higher resolutions, they typically don't have 
the bandwidth to push out HD content at several megabits per second (or 
it would be prohibitively expensive if they did). So I think mobile 
videoconferencing resolutions around 360p are much more realistic, and 
perfectly suitable for software. At this point I'll just refer people to 
the guy who posted here from TI:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg03785.html
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb