- 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