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

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
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 67D4C11E8280 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 1YN8ihhf0Bab for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B717D11E816F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1875; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1308672679; x=1309882279; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QTztOyePuZc4VXX5kTNMfiOg2wnvpsPLBhId1pnnc5M=; b=NlK7YrNg3ZfAgCy6uvEOySeMSlsYekNnfoILI/bVZ9jaTcMjS+RmWD5N tsCKQ3NsTC0qHx+5pvwW2d4/xnogmUUltmC4JyR6UhzuEiNNMGi9dfbo/ +nE+bOtDDO97tL5WFUmNv0xGpaV3ZbdWJ3B5EuVqOnnHrx56PrAjXz05x g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EADnCAE5Io8US/2dsb2JhbABUpnF3iHOhO55IhioEhyKKRJAm
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,402,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="95535726"
Received: from bgl-core-3.cisco.com ([72.163.197.18]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2011 16:11:17 +0000
Received: from dhcp-171-68-21-107.cisco.com (dhcp-171-68-21-107.cisco.com [171.68.21.107]) by bgl-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5LGBEeN021718; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:11:15 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DFF052A.8020202@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:11:15 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <01A17A75-0700-416E-A4D4-C6EB97265F8B@cisco.com>
References: <5DA67EA1-77DC-4F55-850C-E76E0F133A81@cisco.com> <BANLkTi=g13whA3PCXKPW5Q7a2PzEDY3ESg@mail.gmail.com> <4DFF052A.8020202@alvestrand.no>
To: Aron Rosenberg <arosenberg@logitech.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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 16:11:21 -0000

On Jun 20, 2011, at 1:30 , Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> On 06/17/11 21:38, Aron Rosenberg wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Video Size Change.
>> 
>> Alice and Bob are in a video call in their browsers and have negotiate a high resolution video. Bob decides to change the size of the windows his browser is displaying video to a small size.  Bob's browser should be able to regenerate the video codec parameters with Alice's browser to change the resolution of video Alice sends to match the smaller size.
>> 
>> 
>> Changing compression due to a user change in window size is usually not done since it has a bad long term effect on video quality. In almost all the major video calling systems, video resolution is a function of current bandwidth (which changes as the rate control system detects differences) and/or constrained by the physical device, but not a function of a user dragging the window size. At an equivalent bitrate, it is better to compress a larger resolution and display it smaller (higher PSNR), then compress a smaller resolution if you are within the codec's effective bitrate for that larger resolution.

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.