Re: [rtcweb] Video resolution SHOULDs (Re: resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01)

Stephen Botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Mon, 05 December 2011 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@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 3FFA811E8099 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:38:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.765
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 RNb8iO7Vtxv5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:38:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0666D11E8081 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:38:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qadb15 with SMTP id b15so2158230qad.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:38:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yF/LEv13asDP8Yau7hQSCp84weDorMpwZFS+HWMJ7tI=; b=lR5hVwKPL/m1O8Tmb+oBOfo/GdBkgIvzvWEbSGKY191zhOtIhSwcOBBws1hi5z09PX Ev3b7Rhs8e5omml2tmVep37xHZ+AulRp+8vcJ+QhWwIpSGRZxvPMNjwUhEOTHMUKNU1R MazHUYmg0jNcecFcLuh5Ba9ErzGpnweqZYYgw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.216.197 with SMTP id hj5mr9522354qab.15.1323121130537; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:38:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.181.205 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:38:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEW_RktRWnzBkUgb8KLKuG06u8sbK5ADJDdrRLhnKBreOG=wFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201111171620.pAHGKK9M016833@mtv-core-3.cisco.com> <CAFA60D4.57C9%cary.bran.standards@gmail.com> <CAEW_Rkv-ToWmNjbuJsVOdEE=P5+s28GUceYDGQ=EcQO3XZz=Vw@mail.gmail.com> <4ED53736.4030703@alvestrand.no> <CAEW_Rkvo3ho6QrhP6cX0cGvOAKK6KZ=J38ZUjR8pzr+SwsZOiw@mail.gmail.com> <201111300518.pAU5I3SJ021725@mtv-core-2.cisco.com> <CAEW_RktRWnzBkUgb8KLKuG06u8sbK5ADJDdrRLhnKBreOG=wFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:38:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMC7SJ4gQZ9e-Tx30EOX85TyGZb8gZgbtEtYzdL3zw=n1DW+SQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf300fb3c7fb035304b35f2492"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video resolution SHOULDs (Re: 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: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:38:53 -0000

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net> wrote:

> On 29 November 2011 21:18, James M. Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > not meaning to open a can of worms, but what still requires interlaced
> > video? Most new things convert I to P, but less of these convert P to I.
>
> I guess I didn't respond to this, but what Harald said is a good
> summary. There are certainly still interlaced display devices in
> active use. For example, the screen in our video conferencing room
> only does 1080i, not 1080p, but the issue is more going the other
> direction.
>
> There are reasons to produce interlaced content still; for high-motion
> sources (like sport) the additional temporal resolution can give a
> better experience without the (mostly unsupported) overhead of 60p.
> That said, interlaced media support shouldn't be a requirement for
> this draft.
>

I believe there is a lot of IPR on interlaced coding, which should also be
taken into account.

It is quite easy to convert 30p to 60i for display.

On the other hand, turning 60i to 30p for progressive PC displays is
certainly possible, but most software PC players do a very poor job of it.
Interlaced coding and deinterlacing both carry a delay penalty.

So I think interlaced media should be a non-requirement for RTCWEB.

BTW, ESPN uses 720p60 instead of 1080i60 in order to get better motion
handling, so I am puzzled by the (mostly unsupported) comment.

- sb


>  -r
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>