3 ms·
Good one! Might be a good suggestion for WebRTC spec as well!
by manidoraisamy 13y ago
Good one! Might be a good suggestion for WebRTC spec as well!
- UnoriginalGuy 13y agoWouldn't this get implemented in the client code rather than the API itself?
- jloughry 13y agoTo achieve the goal of saving bandwidth, it must have been done coöperatively between the remote machine and mine. Their end had to understand that my end was short of bandwidth (remember, this is cheap ADSL, and my broadband speeds are r-e-a-l-l-y asymmetric) and send fewer pixels, followed by which my end had to upsample those pixels to keep the picture the same size.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y agoI don't really understand why at all. You send less pixels and the destination machine just displays those as is. What would giving it more information about /why/ really accomplish? What can it do? Wouldn't it make re-sampling decisions based on the content with or without low bandwidth?
- jloughry 13y agoOh, you're right of course. But my machine still has to complain to the other end that it's not getting frames rapidly enough, so there is still some coöperation going on.
- manidoraisamy 13y agoOnly when the quality degrades, the remote bitrate estimator tells the other side to reduce the bitrate if the decoder isn't keeping up. that's the spec. Otherwise it is on default resolution.