You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sorenson Ntouch
- Thread starter dragonman3000
- Start date
VRSEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
VRS, SIP, H.323, H.263, and H.264.
The FCC hasn't "standardized" on anything. It does not enforce anything. The VRS industry was mostly defined when Sorenson gave away enough VP200s to garner 80% of the VRS market. By doing that, whatever the VP200 did at the time became the industry standard, whether anyone else liked it or not.
H.263 baseline requires very little CPU to encode and decode, and is implemented in DLink DVC1000, DVC2000, VP100, VP200, Viable VPAD, Purple MVP, etc etc.
H.264 baseline requires roughly 20% less network IO, but requires an order of magnitude more CPU power to encode. It is also a messier codec in that there are multiple profiles (reduced complexity option (RCDO), baseline, main, extended, and high), and many vendor specific extensions that cause interoperability problems.
Unfortunately, only H.261 is required by H.323. Anything else is optional. What's worse, many vendor's H.323 gear incorrectly doesn't support H.261 as it is "very old".
Also, unfortunately, SIP requires _no_ codecs of any kind.
This means that nTouch can get away with only support H.264, but because of this it only talks to other devices that happen to support the H.264 profile and extensions that it implements.
But this means that none of the legacy videophones can place video calls to an nTouch endpoint.
Simply put, this is a big mess.
The FCC _is_ in discussions with VRS providers now to move to a SIP based platform of some kind, but there are so many interoperability issues involved that the ONLY way this is going to work is if we can have bake-offs and other public events that shame offending VRS providers to fix their gear.
You have no idea how much of a mess this is.
What is the difference between H.263 and H264.
Why couldn't FCC standardize the VP specs or settings or like that for all VPs? That way the VP users would not be frastrusted.
The FCC hasn't "standardized" on anything. It does not enforce anything. The VRS industry was mostly defined when Sorenson gave away enough VP200s to garner 80% of the VRS market. By doing that, whatever the VP200 did at the time became the industry standard, whether anyone else liked it or not.
H.263 baseline requires very little CPU to encode and decode, and is implemented in DLink DVC1000, DVC2000, VP100, VP200, Viable VPAD, Purple MVP, etc etc.
H.264 baseline requires roughly 20% less network IO, but requires an order of magnitude more CPU power to encode. It is also a messier codec in that there are multiple profiles (reduced complexity option (RCDO), baseline, main, extended, and high), and many vendor specific extensions that cause interoperability problems.
Unfortunately, only H.261 is required by H.323. Anything else is optional. What's worse, many vendor's H.323 gear incorrectly doesn't support H.261 as it is "very old".
Also, unfortunately, SIP requires _no_ codecs of any kind.
This means that nTouch can get away with only support H.264, but because of this it only talks to other devices that happen to support the H.264 profile and extensions that it implements.
But this means that none of the legacy videophones can place video calls to an nTouch endpoint.
Simply put, this is a big mess.
The FCC _is_ in discussions with VRS providers now to move to a SIP based platform of some kind, but there are so many interoperability issues involved that the ONLY way this is going to work is if we can have bake-offs and other public events that shame offending VRS providers to fix their gear.
You have no idea how much of a mess this is.
Last edited: