Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[Thomas Reisinger <[e-mail]>]

Team,

I had the same concerns about the royalty fee, but after some research I think there aren't any more. For h.264 this still applies. H.261 is not acceptable anymore in a HD world as it is today. Maybe somebody else cloud put some light on the royalty fees for h.263. I will continue my research.

Cheers,

Thomas Reisinger

> On 17.11.2013, at 21:58, Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> The reason H.261 is even being considered is because it is an old-enough
> specification that any patents on it should have now expired.  Patents,
> and their liability on existing video formats, are amongst the biggest
> factors affecting which formats can be adopted into the rtcweb standard.
> 
> H.263 most likely (I haven't checked) still has patents associated with
> it that are active and, therefore, present an issue unless the
> respective owners of said patents have publicly declared them royalty-free.
> 
>> On 11/17/2013 03:13 PM, Thomas Reisinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Instead of h.261, I would recommend h.263 as a common base.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Thomas 
>> Sent from mobile device
>> 
>>> On 17 Nov 2013, at 20:54, Maik Merten <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> just wondering if something like
>>> 
>>> "9. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All entities MUST at least implement one of those. Entities that do not support both H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261."
>>> 
>>> has already popped up. My reasoning is that implementations supporting both high performance codecs will always negotiate to use on of those - H.261 should never be relevant there.
>>> 
>>> It appears that all implementors are willing to implement either H.264 or VP8 (but not necessarily both). This obviously means that negotiation failure regarding a high-performance codec is a possiblity. In this case H.261 is actually useful so that basic video calls can still be established (for instance, I guess deaf people may always appreciate a video connection, as long as sign language can be transmitted).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Maik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 14.11.2013 12:37, schrieb Jeremy Fuller:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Gaining IETF consensus on making it mandatory to support only H.264 or
>>>> only VP8 has clearly failed. I would welcome anyone to share their
>>>> thoughts on why they believe this situation will change anytime in the
>>>> next few years.  Therefore, can I suggest that we remove items 1 and 2
>>>> from the list. Hopefully this will speed up the process by focusing
>>>> efforts towards gaining agreement on one of the remaining options.
>>>> The following alternatives has been proposed:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. All entities MUST support H.264
>>>> 2. All entities MUST support VP8
>>>> 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>>>> 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
>>>>   support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>>> 5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>>> 6. All entities MUST support H.261
>>>> 7. There is no MTI video codec
>>>> 8. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
>>>>   least one of H.264 and VP8
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jeremy Fuller
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
>