Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Hrishikesh Kulkarni <rishi@turtleyogi.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <rishi@turtleyogi.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A781AE159 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:26:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wpt06FaQ734S for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA921AE115 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x13so10882915ief.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:26:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rH0sMFQdQx2zcmcJ5/pAeNzh4J2R0bAity3B1Yq0qTM=; b=Ya0OvsqHbu81RHw3iBXidGtHnWBxOGLI4kEwiAYCFsrbwY7lwmXOOWuC05EMw0wxsZ PIut/Ng0k79SfVmNizNW/rIeeKBQb7wdaTmUINs2/aXPAtB/kJQPM/akLcXG2fDkaI5M p90TLQJ4qm+8P8p6+ZS5bCO2LY4aLSud4TE76Y1jj2rEkB/COjLNs/bMKVzz+QwraxPQ za+wqvpr+wb4ygKEN6PSrIoagTtzIX5DdBQoPWY+DuXqfb9iuMJxeS6hRW4ggkBP5hFM OYvDH3Pq7EdCucsyGhy/9v1yw4Uhnm41pLYj2OhvVE1fKOjSXiRPcmJ9s6RAXvob4fLZ N7Lw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrzyYvv2bm+hOir5Ry0UEDldF5Brx1WBAxhObItOv2XoIMXtpSLD9+I5I2XyrJrSYE5dKT
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.82.196 with SMTP id e4mr4273603icl.58.1385537213233; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.229.68 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:26:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [14.139.157.28]
In-Reply-To: <CAGgHUiSsWH70q9F9bKXtjMA9Ht63HgAvxK+RBeZgPWsL=jsZDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <CEB43444.4986F%stevek@stevek.com> <CAMwTW+jO-BQh00fmH-ueCNsVsHbHRCiwHt6X0jFbho-B89ag=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0fwSrsT4CmTUP8cK7TJTA3J7LqDN0bbtNT4DxnQS6HnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALFWOz7XReU20aEbOVPvP4Q7KWUbGzbBedXE246b47HDWvzz6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAGgHUiSsWH70q9F9bKXtjMA9Ht63HgAvxK+RBeZgPWsL=jsZDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:56:53 +0530
Message-ID: <CALFWOz44jyB=5nXYNQBtEpUrMgXfD8GGMXW87VeaVMWu-o_5Qw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hrishikesh Kulkarni <rishi@turtleyogi.com>
To: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30363fa16b134004ec23850d
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 27 Nov 2013 07:26:56 -0000

In that case the source endpoint/browser needs the bandwidth/compute to
produce many encode streams (different codecs/bitrate). I would rather the
MCU handle the transcoding/transrating.



On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not just run the codec at the same bitrates that the other codecs
> would of been using anyway? That wouldn't increase the costs of bandwidth.
>
>
> On 27 November 2013 08:39, Hrishikesh Kulkarni <rishi@turtleyogi.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>wrote;wrote:
>>
>>> For 1:many with MCU, I don't understand why you wouldn't do #2, i.e.
>>> transcode. As stated earlier, the bandwidth costs of using an inefficient
>>> codec (which any MCU service will incur) exceed the CPU cost of transcode.
>>>
>>
>> Good point on bandwidth costs. But you need to transcode if the decoding
>> endpoints/browsers dont support the codec or the bitrate of the source.
>> This applies to audio and video. If the source video is 720p@800kbpswhich could then "transrated" into multiple bitrates at 500kbps or
>> downsized to 480p@300kbps. We did this for audio when Chrome was on isac
>> and Firefox was on opus.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:47 AM, <bryandonnovan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lots of uses will be 1:1 calls, and maybe 30% fallback applies in this
>>>> case.  My use of WebRTC involves 1:many group calls in the browser with an
>>>> MCU.  For 1:many, the options are 1) fallback to common codec and 2)
>>>> transcode.  So, for 1:many we can say that the chance of using the fallback
>>>> codec is 100%.  Assuming IE and Safari actually ship WebRTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Steve Kann <stevek@stevek.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mo,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we all agree that choosing H.264 or VP8 would be better, but
>>>>> it is clear that neither option today has consensus.    Circumstances could
>>>>> change in the future, but it seems that OpenH264 was not enough to change
>>>>> that circumstance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that where your scenario might go astray is that users won’t
>>>>> associate their poor experience with “WebRTC”, or “that web stuff” — they
>>>>> will associate it with the brand of the service which they are using at the
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for example, if Facebook builds video chat using WebRTC, and they
>>>>> do no transcoding, 30% of users might associate their poor video with
>>>>> Facebook, but most of them won’t call it “that web shit” — they would say
>>>>> Facebook video sucks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Facebook could decide to transcode 30% of the time, in
>>>>> which case the user would have a different experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Facebook obviously just being used as an example service which might
>>>>> implement WebRTC video.
>>>>>
>>>>> -SteveK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 9:17 PM
>>>>> To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
>>>>> Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>>>> Subject: [rtcweb] H.261
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/21/13 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Assume this wins and all obey. Chrome does H.261+VP8, Firefox does
>>>>> H.261+H.264+VP8, IE does H.261+H.264, Safari does H.261+H.264. According to
>>>>> various (incredibly extrapolated, possibly inaccurate and sometimes
>>>>> conflicting) sources [1] on who uses what browser, the chance of H.261
>>>>> fallback is a whopping 30% [2]. Not the minor insignificant case some had
>>>>> assumed.
>>>>>
>>>>> How will these users react to H.261 QCIF/CIF compared to what they use
>>>>> today, say Skype for example? "This web shit really sucks. I’m going back
>>>>> to Skype and never trying it again." Is that the first (and perhaps last)
>>>>> impression we want from users that try webrtc? Those arguing crappy video
>>>>> is better than no video are ignoring the critical importance of first
>>>>> impressions. While some may accept crappy video as usable, many more may be
>>>>> permanently turned off and tune out even faster than if they got only
>>>>> (good) audio. It’s not as if webrtc is the only game in town. Users have
>>>>> options, so it needs to be competitive with competitive technology which
>>>>> has already set the bar.
>>>>>
>>>>> We previously narrowed the options down to H.264 and VP8 for good
>>>>> reasons over the course of this excruciatingly long decision. Reopening
>>>>> discarded tangents like H.261 does not move us forward as a workgroup, and
>>>>> certainly does not move webrtc forward as a technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mo
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
>>>>> [2] H.261 fallback % = 2 x VP8-only% x H.264-only% = 2 x Chrome% x
>>>>> (IE% + Safari%)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>