- From: youennf via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:48:47 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
> @youennf The [SelectSettings](https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/getusermedia.html#dfn-selectsettings) _algorithm_ **is** precise if you follow it I do not think the following step is precise enough: 'For every possible settings dictionary of copy compute its fitness distance'? Especially in a context where all values are not independent: frame rate might be 60fps for small resolution but 30fps for high resolution. I fear the same might apply with pan, tilt, zoom, focusDistance. Which is one of several reasons why we should refrain from using numerical values for PTZ device selection. In general, this algorithm assumes to compute an absolute minimum of a multivariable function. This seems overkill. Just the computation of the domain of the function might be difficult to get interoperability. I agree it is good to define an algorithm to compute settings in an interoperable manner, but what is the motivation for such complexity? It seems we are trying to solve a problem that users do not care about. The counter proposal that I hope to present next week is to select devices based on priorities of constraints. For camera, I was thinking of something like PTZ > deviceId > groupId > facingMode > aspectRatio > width > height > frameRate. To un break the tie, use the order exposed by enumerateDevices so that default devices are first. -- GitHub Notification of comment by youennf Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-image/issues/256#issuecomment-690089953 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2020 08:48:49 UTC