Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Ron wrote:
> 2. Can anybody show a sustainable objection for why we _can't_ use H.261.
>
>   If they can, we're probably doomed.  If they can't we have an initial
>   choice for MTI.

I have not seen a convincing argument that H.261 performs well enough to
permit real-time video communication at reasonable quality and bitrates.

I have not seen recent statistics for Germany but I suspect it is common
that household members share a line with an upstream of around 640 kbps,
that would basically allow for two 320x240 H.264 CBP + Audio streams at
30 fps in good quality. Would H.261 permit at least one stream at the
same quality? If not, then nobody would use H.261-only WebRTC products,
and people are not going to appreciate if a VP8 product connecting with
a H.264 product falls back to H.261 to avoid negotiation failure.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]