On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK < stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > 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. > > If upscaling is not allowed, then I it's impossible to meet a requirement of "must be exactly 90 pixels in height". > 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 20:16:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:14 UTC