Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 6D76521E8179 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.453
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 OR77drIKRksH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
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 C5BB621E8151 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
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 r9UJHBum029976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:17:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <52715B32.6010404@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:17:06 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
References: <527147FF.5010506@nostrum.com> <CAGgHUiRH81UAmLaan=MRGuk-RoJBuCJ7SsuB5516TiZcNi8FFA@mail.gmail.com> <52715051.1090206@nostrum.com> <CAGgHUiRCdnL6doBDjXSFuYwdcqPiJKR1961h6GigjKCORvXv+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGgHUiRCdnL6doBDjXSFuYwdcqPiJKR1961h6GigjKCORvXv+w@mail.gmail.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: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:17:58 -0000

On 10/30/13 14:08, Leon Geyser wrote:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsphone/develop/windows.phone.media.capture.audiovideocapturedevice.supportedvideoencodingformats%28v=vs.105%29.aspx
> Playback of H.264 should be supported on all Windows Phones, but 
> encoding looks like it is device specific.
> It may or may not return H.264, but in reality most Windows Phones 
> probably do support it. I am not sure.

Given that Microsoft has been pushing pretty hard to make H.264 the 
WebRTC MTi video codec, I doubt they would neglect to support it in 
their own platform.

> I don't think it would be possible to download and use the Cisco 
> library though.

I don't know why you'd want to. Native platform support is probably 
hardware accelerated.

> The future is uncertain. I have no idea if new platforms will popup 
> without H.264 support.

I didn't ask you to predict whether one would. What I asked for was 
much, much easier. What I asked for was a non-laughable story around how 
such a platform might arise in a way that precludes using the Cisco library.

/a