Re: Some ideas on SVC support in WebRTC 1.0 (Take 2)

Den 11. juli 2018 10:12, skrev Sergio Garcia Murillo:
> On 09/07/2018 13:51, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 07/04/2018 01:59 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>
>>> [BA] If the desire is to make things as simple as possible, could we
>>> do something like this? 
>>>
>>>
>>> var encodings = [
>>>   {
>>>     rid: "L0",
>>>     temporalLayers: 2,
>>>
>>>     spatialLayers: 3
>>>
>>>  } 
>>>
>>>
>> I think this would be unwise.
>>
>> There are 2 parameters - temporal scaling and spatial scaling. Calling
>> a layer "temporal" or "spatial" implies that only one of these
>> parameters varies from its base layer; it should (I think) be quite
>> common to vary both.
>>
> I am not sure if I understand your concern, could you elaborate it a bit
> more please? As I understand the proposal, the encoding attributes
> defines the number of temporal and spatial layers that it will contain
> (same as it is done now with the chrome field trial to enable SVC for
> VP9). In this case this will create a layer structure withing the the
> encoding that would be sl0tl0, sl0tl1, sl0tl2, sl1tl0, sl1tl1, sl1tl2,
> sl2tl0, sl2tl1, sl2tl2, and the encoding parameters for each layer
> (downscale, bitrate, etc) would be decided by the browser based on the
> encoding attributes.

If I want to send an SVC stream that has a 320x240 base layer at 10 fps
and an enhancement layer of 640x480 at 60 fps, and no other layers, is
this temporal or spatial scaling?

> 
> Best regards
> Sergio

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2018 08:33:39 UTC