Re: [rtcweb] MTI motion JPEG

I don't mind MJPEG at high bitrates like 1Mbit/s, but at 256Kbps I
struggled to get something acceptable out of ffmpeg's MJPEG encoder. I have
a 256Kbps connection btw :)

On 30 November 2013 22:46, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Actually that may work. Toying around with mjpeg I found that, for
> instance, CIF video can be transmitted with somewhat usable quality at full
> framerate at slightly over one mbit/s. Usable quality at around half a
> mbit/s can be achieved by decreasing the framerate. Perceived picture
> quality can be increased by postprocessing (deblocking, deringing) or the
> decoding technique described in "William B. Pennebaker, Joan L. Mitchell -
> JPEG: Still Image Data Compression Standard, 1993". I would also assume
> that support for the arithmetic encoder could be mandated by now,
> increasing coding efficiency.
>
> So this makes for a lousy video codec, but at least it's fast,
> "everywhere", presumably free of additional IPR risk, and flexible
> regarding frame size. I can also be used to occasionally push high-quality
> pictures (think slide shows), a use case H.261 included a hack for (4CIF)
> but would be better handled by MJPEG anyways.
>
>
> Maik
>
>
> Am 30.11.2013 01:49, schrieb Ralph Giles:
>
>  I'd like propose motion JPEG as the manditory-to-implement video codec,
>> per RFC 2435 or similar.
>>
>> Yes, I'm serious. I didn't propose this earlier to avoid splitting the
>> vote at the last meeting.
>>
>> Our goal here is to to avoid negotiation failure. We don't have
>> concensus for either h.264 or VP8, but no one is happy with the
>> performance of the older formats we've been discussing.
>>
>> Since we can't have acceptable performance in our fallback we should
>> instead optimize for minimum complexity. We all have to ship this and
>> hope it's never used in practice.
>>
>> While not as trivial as G.711 audio, mjpeg+rtp is simpler to implement
>> than the more recent obsolete codecs we've been discussing. JPEG decode
>> is already universally supported for still images. As the simplest
>> compressed format it has advantages for testing and legacy
>> interoperation, just like G.711. It works fine over a LAN and for the
>> WAN...well, you can have a couple of blurry frames a minute if you like
>> that better than nothing at all.
>>
>>   -r
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>