Re: [rtcweb] JS friendly codec compromise?

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Zach Lym wrote:
>> Which aspect of "performance" do you mean here, and could you share some
>> references to support the claim? References to a legal analysis would be
>> helpful aswell.
>
>ORBX claims performance on par with H.264.  We all know that's probably
>marketing hype, but it's hard to imagine not being able to outperform
>H.261.  Even if the working group chose to hack together a custom codec
>which is worse than H.261, an upgradeable client means we can update the
>spec as performance improvements are made by the browser vendors.

I meant performance characteristics like, say, battery life per second
of decoded video at H.261 resolutions and GPRS bitrates, to throw in a
couple of metrics. Or something like "ORBX needs more CPU but produces
smaller files at the same quality level". Maybe ORBX is cheap to decode
but expensive to encode, while with H.261 both is cheap? Comparisons
along those lines supported by references would be useful.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/