- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:26:47 -0500
- To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 23:27:20 UTC
On 2/13/16 11:50 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote: > I hope we can all remember that we are only considering > scaleResolutionDownToHeight/Width for the encoding parameters *for > simulcast scenarios*. If simulcast isn't part of the scenario, then > there's no need for these (or maxFramerate, or scaleResolutionDownBy, > etc). And most app developers never deal with simulcast. Anything > we add for simulcast is already well in the realm of an advanced use case. Given the years the Media Capture and Streams WG spent defining an overly complex constraints language, I find the repeated assumption in this thread that a track can be constrained to any arbitrary size and frame rate, amusing. If it were true, it would offer amazing simplifications to that spec, like: function fitnessDistance() { return 0 }; // = Whatever you want. typedef MediaTrackSettingsMediaConstraintsSet; // no min|max|exact|ideal typedef MediaConstraintsSet MediaTrackConstraints; // bye-bye advanced! Despite having sunk effort into implementing this already, I would personally welcome it. Just make up your collective minds. If that's not happening, then I find scaleResolutionDownBy and maxFramerate useful outside of simulcast. .: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 23:27:20 UTC