* Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >MTI does not need to be a good choice, it merely needs to achieve >interoperability. The Working Group seeks interoperability in the area of real-time video, not in the area of slide shows or scaled animated icons. I suggested earlier to compare H.261 to sending a series of JPEG images or sending animated GIFs in terms of resolution, framerates, bitrates, and so on. If H.261 is shown to be much closer to H.264 CBP than it is to those, I would be willing to consider it. >People would use H.261 if that is all the clients at either end supported. If they were unable to use other clients and really need low-resolution slide shows and there are no other factors to consider -- then perhaps. I myself would not voluntarily watch low-framerate or extremely blurry video if I do not have to. -- 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/