<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Michael and Florian,<br>
<br>
Great discussion! jeje.. let's add some more opions.<br>
<br>
Firts, about licenses, they don't apply if you only recieve the mpeg-4
stream and store in an mp4, <br>
just the same as in the AMR licenes.<br>
<br>
About video quality, I really don't beleive there is any significant
gain moving from h263 to mpeg4 part 2.<br>
mpeg4 part 10 (h264) is another history, but there aren't many handsets
supporting it yet. <br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Sergio<br>
<br>
<br>
Michael (qq12345) escribió:
<blockquote
cite="mid:!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAABdHwsJdFMARjKlisMRGICBClSMAEAAAAJuKqHxT0plEk23QABl1y8MBAAAAAA==@web.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Florian,
nice to see, that you emphasized some video coding theory.
Yes, H.263 is very old and very poor. A lot of artefacts are usually seen.
Fast movement with very low bitrate is a mess.
So, not ideal for video telephony with today's requirements according
to quality.
MPEG-4 SP@L0 is the easiest MPEG-4 encoding and a lot of
tools inside MPEG-4 are disabled. But it is the closest toolset
to H.263.
Perhaps you have doubts, why so many mobile phones upload H.263
streams as Web 2.0 User Generated Content UGC to your ViiF platform?
It is a very easy reason. Licensing costs:
For every MPEG-4 _stream_, _encoder_, _decoder_, _stored content_ you
have to pay royalty fees for "System", "Video", and "Audio".
All mobile phone manufacturers pay
fees for decoding MPEG-video for every sold mobile.
But they reject paying fees for encoding video, too. There is not really a
user requirement.
Therefore they use the fallback and use for encoding H.263.
All H.-standards are from ITU-T and they take care of royalty free
algorithms. Good luck.
So, if you change your offer for streams of MPEG-4 content to a broad
publicity,
you should sign a contract with MPEG LA. Therefore I assume, you should
speak
with your CFO first.... :-)
Besides these legal issues: The quality of the encoded streams
depend heavily on the experience people stick into the video and audio
encoders. Some companies have very good video quality
for mobile 2G networks, while big operators do that with
3G and a lot more bandwidth. Of course, companies like Akamai,
Limelight, Dr. Materna claim to be the best, but there are some
small booths being better, but not so well known, of course.
But all of this is out of scope of the business analysts
while making money.
(Hm, sounds like I am a little bit bored...)
More inline...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:asterisk-video-bounces@lists.digium.com">asterisk-video-bounces@lists.digium.com</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:asterisk-video-bounces@lists.digium.com">mailto:asterisk-video-bounces@lists.digium.com</a>] On Behalf Of
Florian Greb ViiF
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:floriangreb@web.de">floriangreb@web.de</a>
Subject: [Asterisk-video] MPEG4 part 2 video support
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello list,
we've had some trouble with video quality with H.263, which
does not seem to be optimal.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->:-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A guy from radvision states here
( <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.commsdesign.com/design_corner/OEG20030128S0010">http://www.commsdesign.com/design_corner/OEG20030128S0010</a> ):
"The 3G-324M standard calls out the H.263 codec as mandatory
and MPEG-4 as recommended codec for video processing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->True. (I have in mind H.261 is mandatory? And even h.263 is already
optional? Correct?)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, MPEG-4 is the 3G-324M standard de-facto used by all
major supporting vendors.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Yes, but ... look before...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Resiliency and high efficiency make MPEG-4 codec particularly
well suited for 3G-324M."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->[...]
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Having read that, we'd like to use MPEG4 part 2 simple
profile 1 level 0 as the video codec.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Which is more or less H.263.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Looking at this patch
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=8663">http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=8663</a>) from 2006, Asterisk
should already be able to pass MPEG4 part2 video.
As support for this MPEG4 part 2 codec is not mandatory,
every video played must be available in both formats, and
there must be a way to select the respective file according
to the video codec negotiated by H.245.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Florian, if it is the de-facto standard, you can focus on MPEG-4. :-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Furthermore, there is the need for an asterisk app to play
and save MPEG4.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->MP4Play plays and stores MPEG-4 files. 3GP containers.
One of your core business features.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The only mails I found in the Asterisk Video archive (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.asteriskguru.com/archives/asterisk-video-how-to-int">http://www.asteriskguru.com/archives/asterisk-video-how-to-int</a>
egrate-mpeg4visual-h264-mpeg4-p-vt108615.html?highlight=mpeg4
and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.asteriskguru.com/archives/asterisk-video-integratin">http://www.asteriskguru.com/archives/asterisk-video-integratin</a>
g-mpeg4-video-codec-in-asterisk-vt85784.html?highlight=mpeg4
) are not really helpful.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So, my questions are:
Has anybody ever done it?
Is there any patch?
Are there any Experiences?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->There is another branch in Digium.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are there other things needed to change?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Capabilities exchange procedure. Signalling on Layer 1,2,3 or so.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is this guy from radvision right? Do most mobile phones really support
MPEG4 part2 and has it really better video quality?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Yes.
But you have to distinguish: local playback, streaming, video call, java.
It is not said, that they support all 4 items. Marketing always claims
MPEG-4 support.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Kind regards,
Florian
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Greetings from germany,
Michael
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.api-digital.com">http://www.api-digital.com</a>--
asterisk-video mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-video">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-video</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>