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

Re: Proposal for Hints Information

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:57:30 -0800
Cc: "Aleksandr Avseyev" <alexn74@gmail.com>, <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <37DCF2EB-6F79-4AD4-A01B-4551A516597E@cisco.com>
To: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>

I'm thinking about the uses cases here and let me try a straw man  

If there is an aspect ratio, specified, meeting that constraint is the highest priority.

If there is a max height or width set, meeting that constrain is the next highest priority.

If there is a min height or width set, meeting that constraint is the lowest priority.

All constraints being meant, select the solution with the largest number of pixels.


For the cases I could think of of being "realistic" use cases - these rules seemed to work. Thoughts on if something as simple of this would not work? different set of rules ?



On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:12 , Dan Burnett wrote:

> This almost makes my point for why selectable configs are best.  Authors will always want to control priority.  In fact, I suspect authors will want not just single priority flags but rather an ability to give a priority list, e.g., height_bound is more important than best_aspect, which is more important than fit_height, but width_bound, best_fit, and fit_width are unacceptable.
> 
> -- dan
> 
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Aleksandr Avseyev wrote:
> 
>>   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 14:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:26 UTC