Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

"Martin J. Dürst" <> Thu, 14 November 2013 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814A021E80C1 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:25:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.652
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qELoCjJLOC3v for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2F511E8106 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id rAE6PZAi008773; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:25:35 +0900
Received: from (unknown []) by with smtp id 1aa6_8a2c_921608dc_4cf5_11e3_a617_001e6722eec2; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:25:34 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FB8BFF5D; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:25:34 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:25:19 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cowwoc <>
References: <> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:25:52 -0000

On 2013/11/14 14:22, cowwoc wrote:
> On 13/11/2013 8:43 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>> Regarding H.261: Consider the following clip, encoded at 256 kbps
>> using H.261.

Thanks for the pointer to the sample.

>> Do you think this quality (QCIF, grayscale, PSNR of 38) is acceptable
>> for your users?
> That is hardly a scientific comparison.

True, but that's not what I asked about.

> And again, it is misleading to imply that I am advocating the mass-use
> of H.261. I am only advocating the use of this codec in the 5-10% of
> cases where the clients fail to agree on a common upgrade path (to VP8
> or H.264). In those cases, I'd happily accept H.261 instead of dropping
> the call. You can still transcode, if you so wish.

Having had a look at the sample, I'd say "it depends".

If the video were used to discuss e.g. some details of a new physical 
product, higher resolution and color may be rather important, and H261 

If it's just to get a quick impression of the person at the other end of 
the call, I guess it would be okay, but in that use case, there's a high 
chance I'd overlay it with some other document even if the video quality 
was much better.

If it's one of many videos of participants in a conference call, 
grayscale may be disappointing but better than nothing, the size may be 
just about right, and the (relatively speaking) high bandwidth may not 
be noticed.

Regards,   Martin.