Re: [rtcweb] Changing video size (Re: use case:)

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Tue, 21 June 2011 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 6C8F311E8121 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9vRHkcFxug0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6203A11E8160 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.7.218] (unverified [160.79.219.114]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 4448-1743317 for multiple; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:23:45 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:23:41 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Aron Rosenberg <arosenberg@logitech.com>
Message-ID: <CA261296.2D494%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Changing video size (Re: use case:)
In-Reply-To: <01A17A75-0700-416E-A4D4-C6EB97265F8B@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 160.79.219.114
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Changing video size (Re: use case:)
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, 21 Jun 2011 16:23:48 -0000

What Cullen writes below matches my experience.  And, its not even limited
to "modern" codecs.  I would suggest that the observed behavior is true
for any video codec that has sub-pel motion compensation, i.e. any video
compression standard developed since H.263 (1998).
Stephan

On 6.21.2011 09:11 , "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:


>[...]
>
>Consider two different video flows using the same codec ...
>
>Stream A is 640 x 480 at 1mbps which is this scaled to 320x240 and
>displayed
>
>Stream B is 320 x 240 at 1mbps which is displayed at 320x240.
>
>My experience has been with modern video codecs that stream B will look
>better than stream A. As well as looking better, it will typically also
>have a better PSNR. There's a bunch of reasons why which are probably not
>worth going into here but give it a try and you will see what I mean. The
>key point is both streams where 1mbps. If stream B was sent at 256 kbps,
>then A would look better.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb