W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Proposal for Hints Information

From: Aleksandr Avseyev <alexn74@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:41:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CALBppDikB-yR+qDtOQYd+6S5u0b8HAHv-az=msVzTY4F8KxrOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
  I would add priority flags: HEIGHT_BOUND, WIDTH_BOUND or BEST_FIT,
BEST_ASPECT, FIT_WIDTH, FIT_HEIGHT. Default priority is pixel count and we
don't care if either height or width go out of bound.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 15:11 , Aleksandr Avseyev wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For Video: ----------------------------
> >
> > min / max height
> >
> > min / max width
> >
> >  Is there any reason not to put height and weight into pairs? From my
> opinion it makes more sense to specify minRes(w, h) and maxRes(w, h).
> Aspect ratio is a good idea, but it should be specified on how it works
> with resolution.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Regards, Aleksandr Avseyev (Futurewei Research Lab)
> >
>
> that seems like a reasonable idea but we'd need to figure one more thing
> out and what is what min and max mine in the case of 2 d vector. For
> example, is 176 by 144 bigger or smaller than 160 by 160. What I would
> propose is that we order them based on the number of pixels. So 176 * 144 =
> 25344 which is smaller than 160 * 160 = 25600. If the number of pixels is
> the same then we pick the one that is wider is considered bigger.
>
> Does that sound like it would work ?
>
>
>


-- 

------------------------------
Regards, Aleksandr Avseyev (Futurewei Research Lab)
www.pictures2.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 02:42:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 January 2012 02:42:24 GMT