Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[e-mail]>]

On 11/23/13 12:46 AM, David Singer wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 15:44 , Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2013 06:42 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:54 , Maik Merten <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And again, H.261 is only considered as fallback option to establish basic video interoperability as no single high-performance video codec can be agreed on. It would only kick into action in situations when the alternative would be "no video at all". This fallback option has to be implementable without relevant restrictions.
>>> I rather suspect that many, given a choice between:
>>> a) deliver crappy video using H.261, with the unstated implication to the users at the two ends that they really need to find something that will interoperate on something better
>>> and
>>> b) tell the users directly that they don’t have a video codec in common, and to get video they need to find something that will interoperate
>>>
>>> would actually prefer (b).  It’s less work, more direct, and more honest.
>>>
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>>
>> Then we need to restate one of the goals of this WG if we're not going
>> to have an MTI.  However, I personally disagree with that change.
> No, I think we all want an MTI codec.  But not at any price in terms of quality degradation, and H.261 may be simply off the bottom end.
This is the last resort if one doesn't have a better alternative. I 
doubt people that really like wide band audio codecs don't use mobile 
phones on 2G/GSM which is quite poor audio experience, but when you are 
on top of mountains or remote locations is the only option.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda