IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01

"Bran, Cary" <cary.bran.standards@gmail.com> Tue, 29 November 2011 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <cary.bran.standards@gmail.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 D76F221F8B40 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:58:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 GM1p3LvJ16L1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5606021F8B33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so5114418qyk.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:58:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JotSb4drukdSMOrG2WTxIu7M2dZhBAy4ma5a49GmdBk=; b=Ur+jdD8Y36GfaGyLeYh7ZYCUINCNi9k9QlqYAgzPvROXSgDDtYK4Sr36dftm2KPjf0 rKWZfH+8bxJL3nw5vwGR+tusKK+bg13Og5uLNV6YWxxuRkTOLwjtpogPaQTVZFIbDdBd IMsS5fzPqHuzpdoHGr11GLwHRVI+kiaG4e4NQ=
Received: by 10.229.69.212 with SMTP id a20mr5841861qcj.125.1322589527719; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.16] (c-98-247-103-106.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [98.247.103.106]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gg6sm38364998qab.3.2011.11.29.09.58.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:58:46 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:59:05 -0800
From: "Bran, Cary" <cary.bran.standards@gmail.com>
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, Aron Rosenberg <arosenberg@logitech.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CAFA5D0F.57C0%cary.bran.standards@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01
In-Reply-To: <201111180548.pAI5mVV9013538@mtv-core-4.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01
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, 29 Nov 2011 17:58:48 -0000

On 11/17/11 9:48 PM, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> wrote:

>At 07:10 PM 11/17/2011, Aron Rosenberg wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Roni Even
>><<mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>The text in the draft on video codec is
>>
>>
>>
>>o  MUST support a minimum resolution of 320X240
>>
>>
>>
>>o  SHOULD support resolutions of 1280x720, 720x480, 1024x768,
>>
>>       800x600, 640x480, 640 x 360 , 320x240
>
>why is 320x240 listed as a MUST and as a SHOULD?

I got a little crazy with the cut and paste - for the 02 version and have
removed the duplicate resolution from the SHOULD section.

Thanks!

>
>James
>
>
>>I would suggest dropping 720x480 as it is neither 16:9 or 4:3 ratio,
>>but a non-standard 3:2 ratio. From a camera perspective 1024x768 and
>>800x60 are not well supported in video modes. Cameras, both
>>integrated and external generally support 640x480 and below with
>>high quality, or support 1280x720 and below with high quality. I
>>would also replace the intermediate 4:3 (1024x768 and 800x600)
>>resolutions with 16:9 sizes such as 1024x576 and 864x480.
>>
>>Aron Rosenberg
>>LifeSize, A Division of Logitech Inc.
>>_______________________________________________
>>rtcweb mailing list
>>rtcweb@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email