[Proposal]: Add experimental.enableResolutionChecks loadVideo option #1533
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
peaBerberian
added
the
proposal
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
04904c9 to
fc7b62f
Compare
peaBerberian
added
the
Compatibility
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
3 times, most recently
from
05e4f32 to
c67995c
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
c233f42 to
7bf784b
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
7bf784b to
d9c5f0b
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
d9c5f0b to
0c1d7df
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
dev
branch
2 times, most recently
from
00fc806 to
b7216b4
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4a42123 to
db2d5a4
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
db2d5a4 to
d92973a
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
d92973a to
ad68e25
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
ad68e25 to
f28070f
Compare
|
? Automated performance checks have passed on commit DetailsPerformance tests 1st run outputNo significative change in performance for tests:
|
This is a Proposal to optionally move some "resolution checks" that were historically on the application-side on the RxPlayer side. Some devices aren't able to play video content with a higher resolution than e.g. what their screen size can display: some will fail on error, others will just infinitely freeze etc. Many of those devices have vendor-specific API that indicated whether a device was e.g. compatible to 4k content, 1080p content etc. Until now we told the application developers to do the Representation filtering themselves with the help of the `representationFilter` option from the `loadVideo` API. This is because of the vast numbers of devices out there, each with their own API, and because we didn't want to take the risk of having false negatives if it turned out some of those API were not always right. However, many of those devices are very popular (Lg and Samsung TVs, game consoles). Thus I'm wondering if it would be better that we provide some of those resolution checks ourselves, to lower the efforts an application have to make to rely on the RxPlayer on those common devices. For now I added an experimental `loadVideo` option: `experimental.enableResolutionChecks`, that has to be set to `true` to enable the behavior. The long term idea would be that for devices where it seems 100% accurate, we would enable the check by default. It will directly filter out resolutions that are too high, unless all resolutions are too high on the current video track in which case it will disable the check (as a security). In other cases, it follows the exact same rules than the `isCodecSupported` and `decipherable` properties of `Representation`.
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
feat/resolution-checks
branch
from
f28070f to
35abe6a
Compare
|
? Automated performance checks have passed on commit DetailsPerformance tests 1st run outputNo significative change in performance for tests:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a Proposal to optionally move some "resolution checks" that were historically on the application-side on the RxPlayer side.
Some devices aren't able to play video content with a higher resolution than e.g. what their screen size can display: some will fail on error, others will just infinitely freeze etc.
Many of those devices have vendor-specific API that indicates whether a device was e.g. compatible to 4k content, 1080p content etc.
Until now we told the application developers to do the Representation filtering themselves with the help of the
representationFilteroption from theloadVideoAPI. This is because of the vast numbers of devices out there, each with their own API, and because we didn't want to take the risk of having false negatives if it turned out some of those API were not always right.However, many of those devices are very popular (Lg and Samsung TVs, game consoles). Thus I'm wondering if it would be better that we provide some of those resolution checks ourselves, to lower the efforts an application have to make to rely on the RxPlayer on those common devices.
Implementation
For now I added an experimental
loadVideooption:experimental.enableResolutionChecks, that has to be set totrueto enable the behavior. The long term idea would be that for devices where it seems 100% accurate, we would enable the check by default.It will directly filter out resolutions that are too high, unless all resolutions are too high on the current video track in which case it will disable the check (as a security).
In other cases, it follows the exact same rules than the
isCodecSupportedanddecipherableproperties ofRepresentation.Note about multithreading environment
For now, to simplify, I assume that those vendor API are available in a WebWorker environment. To check if they aren't (in which case we won't filter out anything, so not dramatic either)