[rtcweb] h.261 oddities

David Singer <singer@apple.com> Thu, 02 January 2014 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <singer@apple.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 7AED91ADFFD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:00:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.04
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 CfbnDmFZ6wWG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:00:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F8B1ADFBD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:00:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Received: from relay7.apple.com ([17.128.113.101]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MYS0038MI73CW11@mail-out.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:59:56 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807165-b7f8e6d000004de8-24-52c5c53bd43c
Received: from spicerack.apple.com (spicerack.apple.com [17.128.115.40]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 58.4A.19944.C35C5C25; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from singda.apple.com (singda.apple.com [17.197.32.11]) by spicerack.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0MYS00E8TI7V2F10@spicerack.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:59:55 -0800 (PST)
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <CEE4984B.3E670%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:59:55 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <1B93DA5B-A584-4EAA-9102-C2358358849A@apple.com>
References: <CEE4984B.3E670%stewe@stewe.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCsoWtz9GiQwbR17BZr/7WzOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr40D/E5aChxwVB5qWsTYw/mTrYuTgkBAwkZi8T6iLkRPIFJO4 cG89UJiLQ0hgMpPEnZ1dLBDOaiaJji9HmUAamAX0JO5f1AJp4AUyN86bzQxiCwuIS/R/mcQK YrMJqEo8mHOMEcTmFNCVeHHwHBuIzQIUPzdpATuIzSwQKfF/+xomCFtb4sm7C6wQM20kTjYt AosLCehIrHs4GWy+iICKxKGbP1ggbpaVmH+6dAKjwCyEg2YhOWgWkqELGJlXMQoUpeYkVprr JRYU5KTqJefnbmIEh1xh6g7GxuVWhxgFOBiVeHg9Go8GCbEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLhLT4MFOJN SaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM7bdGhLkJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNTqoFxnsPk7cd+dKyN 5Lrl+eNC7qG9T9g6D7Gy7J2Z9OryY907u9X+d9yWWK3pfD65YaJimMJlGZMdso7746J6Vokw HggXVdlwOKvDdvuKux9Csy6fCL3bKPHHoypVLfe55WWj+lkmnHLhLdqWX+oTH3Z8u28+USjo 1d8fLdZen/yWrzvq2On5g5tdiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAkmY0aDUCAAA=
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] h.261 oddities
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: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:00:11 -0000

(changing the subject as this is discussion, not a poll response, as requested by the chairs)

On Dec 28, 2013, at 15:06 , Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:

> Interestingly enough, H.261 *never* had a set of picture parameters that
> bear a relationship with source formats dominant in the market.
> CIF has 288 lines, QCIF 144, both distinctly non NTSC world.  OTOH, the
> frame rate is 1/29.97 Hz fractions thereof, definitely not PAL/SECAM.
> This is the result of a standardization compromise of the worst sort.
> Note that this hasn¹t hindered the adoption of H.261 much.  Perhaps
> because, at the time, there were literally no alternatives.  Today there
> are.
> Stephan
> 

When we had H.261 in quicktime, we used the ‘system layer’ to give timing, and hence any frame rate, and we also externally tagged the actual picture size (and padded up the encoding). I seem to recall you can do the same in RTP.

Whether H.261 is something I ever want to watch again is another question entirely.


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.