IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 18 December 2013 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 64BCD1AE1FA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:47:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 8F_yJeVlwRez for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A121AE1F7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orochi-2.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rBIJlINr034415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:47:18 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <52B1FBC1.5080407@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:47:13 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <4742CE35-61CC-4485-AE76-FF56AB348AC5@apple.com> <CB1E0DB6-013B-411E-BBBE-7A43A815B339@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB1E0DB6-013B-411E-BBBE-7A43A815B339@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:47:28 -0000

On 12/18/13 13:31, David Singer wrote:
> For example, why is Motion JPEG OK but 261 not?  Because MJPEG is I-frame only, one can send reasonable visual quality at low frame rates, and the user is aware of the other end and that the system works, and systems all have JPEG implemented today, and the RTP format is not complex to add.

Thanks for the clarification. I was really scratching my head over that 
one. I think you and I differ in what we consider "usable," but at least 
your reasoning makes sense to me now.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email