- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:59:41 +0100
- To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Anssi, short answer: No, but you don't need that. Den 21. mars 2016 10:57, skrev Kostiainen, Anssi: > Hi All, > > I'd like to specify the depthPrecision [1] of MediaTrackConstraints to always behave as if it'd be an optional/advanced constraint. > No. More behaviors for constraints is the last thing we need. > Consider this: > > var gotten = navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia({depth: { > depthPrecision: "mm" > }}); > The meaning of that construct is the same as ... getUserMedia( { depth: { dephtPrecision: { ideal: "mm" }} which is precisely what you asked for - you'll get it if it's OK, you won't get it if it's not OK. You can then query the chosen value by using getSettings (when implemented). NOTE: I think the idea of a "depthPrecision" constraint is misguided and should be abandoned, but I've commented more on that at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-depth/issues/100 > ... to be equivalent to: > > var gotten = navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia({depth: { > advanced: { > depthPrecision: "mm" > } > }}); > > ... and neither of the above should fail due to the implementation not being able to satisfy the "mm" precision. > > Is this doable with the current constraints model? Or is this misuse of the said model that should be avoided? Related issue [2]. > > Thanks, > > -Anssi > > [1]: Used for setting the initial depth precision only when the getUserMedia() method is invoked. > > [2]: https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-depth/issues/100 >
Received on Monday, 21 March 2016 15:00:17 UTC