- From: Aleksandr Avseyev <alexn74@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:41:56 -0800
- To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CALBppDikB-yR+qDtOQYd+6S5u0b8HAHv-az=msVzTY4F8KxrOA@mail.gmail.com>
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 UTC