> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-dev-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lange
> Sent: 18 July 2006 16:57
> To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [asterisk-dev] H.263 Buffer size
>
> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 08:29 +020
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 08:29 +0200, Sergio García Murillo wrote:
> John Martin wrote:
> > Hi Devs,
> > I was just watching the SVN commits going by and I was wondering
> > why the H.263 buffer size in format_h263.c had to be increased to
> > 32kB?
>
> I really don't see the point if it either (
#x27;t you need to reflect any changes in format_h264.c as well :-(
John
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-dev-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tilghman Lesher
> Sent: 18 July 2006 08:16
> To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [as
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 July 2006 01:29, Sergio García Murillo wrote:
>> John Martin wrote:
>>> Hi Devs,
> I'm not so sure that downgrading the quality of the frame is even
> within the purview of a format_ module. If Asterisk is acting as a
> temporary storage location for an imag
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 01:29, Sergio García Murillo wrote:
> John Martin wrote:
> > Hi Devs,
> > I was just watching the SVN commits going by and I was
> > wondering why the H.263 buffer size in format_h263.c had to be
> > increased to 32kB?
>
> I really don't see the point if it either (perhaps
John Martin wrote:
> Hi Devs,
> I was just watching the SVN commits going by and I was wondering
> why the H.263 buffer size in format_h263.c had to be increased to
> 32kB?
I really don't see the point if it either (perhaps someone can enlighten us).
I don't know if there is any special case i
