W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Comments on scenarios doc - 9 Feb Version

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:50:49 -0800
Message-ID: <4F344DC9.6060401@alvestrand.no>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 02/09/2012 12:00 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 10:10 AM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
>> (5) picture-in-picture
>> Is this really picture-in-picture, or capture of multiple time-sync'd 
>> videos that can subsequently be edited? Sounds like the latter.
> I think Travis added this after I commented on the list; in any case I 
> was driving towards synchronized capture from both cameras, not 
> locally composited before saving. You could make an argument that 
> local compositing and recording multiple streams are equivalent from 
> this view of the spec (in terms of requirements), but I think they're 
> different in how users understand them.  If the requirements work out 
> the same, I'm ok with it.
The reason I suggested picture-in-picture as a variant was that having 
both exposed "record multiple streams" and "manipulate streams and 
record the result" as two separate requirements.

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 22:51:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:08 UTC