- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:57:30 -0800
- To: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Cc: "Aleksandr Avseyev" <alexn74@gmail.com>, <public-webrtc@w3.org>
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