Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.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 7DCE21AE01E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:41:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=no
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 kYWEH1nQ32O7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04BBD1AE0B4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n7so581662lam.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:41:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ucSURQ3i6dJRgl3tHj/culGeZDrt8dCUDLctJEN8vgU=; b=cXlFM9/jggPoE5D0R3jZTEaoNp0HTLRe6ncXebePvv5iJuWctkwUIsRcvfqocCeu+i iIAJcyCP944YOjsMtSlKLXaIuwjwZHbnFyXbJhJu5ajHv4rIUzBuRO/C8lgWjChzW6iB xk+0+mJ43UbwJFoTNwDC4DoMvRKFW86adyqor45/T5jWLcemZ7kduBhcJFgvOZa7qsMj E+VCRBcVZbf7yup+4Pa+kadefa+JMO+dImVFgVWqPE78ZrvCcKlJOTw972OLN7PAjWMT 5VKDkDqsPt47T5WXjeESiDdcbWx3/h2NL4xv5gJwE2iMJWiocdTYo2PdMB6wU1UzanOO 1n2w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.87.142 with SMTP id ay14mr2072320lab.7.1385098861215; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:41:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:41:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiS867RvNUBvLScNFyTb55VNrGBxeya5qwr+RyPf4oxK5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3560c9a05ad04ebbd750e
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:41:11 -0000

>>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."
How different is this from: "This WebRTC thing is crap, because it doesn't
even show basic video."
What option do you suggest?

>>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.

No consensus was reached between H.264 and VP8. All that is left now is
H.261, Theora and maybe MPEG 1 Part 2.

On 22 November 2013 07:17, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty@cisco.com>; wrote:

>  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
>
>