Re: [rtcweb] MTI motion JPEG

This reminds me of a joke from Google's keynote in the WebRTC World 
conference, where they demoed http://idevelop.ro/ascii-camera/

Didn't we say there were multiple mature implementations of H.261 in the 
wild? As such, what does it matter how complex the implementation is?

Gili

On 29/11/2013 7:49 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> 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