W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > February 2016

Re: maxHeight and maxWidth

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:36:10 +0000
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B374981C6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 17/02/16 18:47, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 2/17/16 12:36 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>> The original thread was about both screencasts and rotating cameras,
>> and I've mostly been focusing on the screencasting case (trying to
>> figure that out before moving on to rotation).
>>
>> But, actually, I have a question for you about getUserMedia:
>>
>> If I specify an exact height of 90 pixels (min and max are 90) and the
>> camera can't open that small, what will an implementation of
>> getUserMedia be expected to do?  Will it scale the camera's input in
>> order to get that exact height, or will it just say "nope"?  Or is it
>> implementation dependent?
>
> I believe Chrome will rescale it to whatever you want, whereas Firefox
> will fail with OverconstrainedError, reflecting the fact that no camera
> on the machine has a native 160x90 mode. Both are to spec btw, but which
> one honors the intent of the spec?

I think it was Cullen who at a call once said that he was fine with the 
UA removing data, but not inventing. That has stuck with me since, so it 
would be OK to downscale resolution (or frame rate) to meet what the app 
wants, but not the other way around.

But I agree, the spec is not clear on what should be done.

>
> See my other post right now about discovery and arbitrary scaling being
> mutually exclusive.
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 18:36:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:47 UTC