Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality
Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Fri, 15 November 2013 05:57 UTC
Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDDA11E810A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:57:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wg9H8vh4WK9r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5F311E8109 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id eh20so2366295lab.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:57:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=miMKWT2jWQ5ISH1aw91dOgEwcsh/ABy0WZZI+Mzrf1Y=; b=lsxwFZrLXNVcKTTg5gKb784innjEkec+8dcnFc28igyBkojderX5AfrLw+6k6J2/Dc HOdtCXAzQ3aJ0JbRwyoU6Yg9Jt6HxhitsLzCvt6euzlaruX5LTyQZehzqNiGZB/roExl Wz34m/eeRDoH74wyeIstequ2zHFEE4APIchqXFbvtD7v0jp1j5hnkkUoio7zGomivyHZ 0RoX0uPhKq1Miu7ilZdqc0FfkPCCehesiV6AcRLYIE2VpTL3AZB8yZ+QRConWuolWZzx E0UU7fr72xfJ2SU0owQ1UfzJ8yOM51u4jKmQKX6MUJfZsaUF/OdAfPdNS3TYPSxVmIgK 9sFg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.27.164 with SMTP id u4mr33361lag.82.1384495052791; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:57:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:57:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACrD=+-auo6VncrusOaRLjfFPNijwRdFomM0t8EwBEE4MZ=tUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52855B35.3080605@nostrum.com> <CEAAB858.AA2AF%stewe@stewe.org> <CAGgHUiShX3wYpFCjUP9cK6isjQLMYDYcYCTbc=Ene9wHfaeNPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACrD=+-auo6VncrusOaRLjfFPNijwRdFomM0t8EwBEE4MZ=tUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:57:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiTg1bWqmeEVyzPGKRB6jaLCCw+1jqpH620gY25Q2TQSRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160ba54d0a47304eb30df40"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:57:41 -0000
Hi Monty, I do like Theora; it compares well against MPEG-4 Part 2:ASP, but won't the reasons why some people don't want to implement VP8 be the same for Theora? On 15 November 2013 07:39, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> wrote: > Stephan just implied strongly they haven't, despite the 20 years. > > And, BTW, I was serious when I mentioned Theora earlier as well. > > Monty > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Maybe MPEG-1 Part 2 would be a better alternative to H.261. How can we > > figure out if all the patents have expired for MPEG-1 Part 2? > > > > > > On 15 November 2013 03:37, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote: > >> > >> Folks, > >> Please don’t consider H.261 and MPEG-1 part 2 as being in the same > league > >> in terms of coding efficiency or network friendliness. They clearly are > >> not. > >> H.261 is what many call the first generation video coding standard. > >> MPEG-1 (and MPEG-2) are second generation. > >> MPEG-1 has half-pel motion compensation. H.261 has not. > >> MPEG-1 has B frames. H.261 has not. > >> MPEG-1 has (arbitrary sized) slices that can be used for MTU size > matching > >> (although they are not commonly used for that purpose). H.261 has not. > >> Instead, H.261 has the Group Of Block picture segmentation mechanism, > that > >> is clearly more optimized for parallel processing than for MTU size > >> matching. > >> MPEG-1 allows for significantly larger motion vectors (necessitated by B > >> frames and the resulting longer prediction interval, but can be used > even in > >> P frame only coding). > >> MPEG-1 has arbitrary picture sizes. H.261 allows QCIF, CIF, and 4CIF > (in > >> “still image” mode, designed for low frame rate application; could run > at > >> high frame rate though). > >> H.261 was ratified (in its first version) in 1988, and in the for all > >> practical purposes final version in 1989. Most people believe that all > >> related patents have expired. > >> MPEG-1 was ratified in late 1992. Its “bug fix” successor MPEG-2 (which > >> adds interlace support) was ratified less than a year later. There are > at > >> least two major disputes going on today regarding technology allegedly > >> infringed by a compliant implementation of MPEG-2. Based on my > technical > >> understanding, one of these technologies is not in any way related to > >> interlaced. > >> Draw your own conclusions. > >> Regards, > >> Stephan > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> > >> Date: Thursday, 14 November, 2013 at 15:22 > >> To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org> > >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality > >> > >> On 11/14/13 17:16, Adam Roach wrote: > >> > >> At 74 seconds and 4.7 MBytes (i.e., 37.6 Mbits), this encoding works out > >> to 508 kbits/second total. > >> > >> > >> Whoops, I messed up my math. It's 148 seconds long, not 74 (Quicktime > >> seems to divide it by two for some reason, although the javascript > decode > >> does the right thing). This works out to 254 kbps. > >> > >> /a > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rtcweb mailing list > >> rtcweb@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtcweb mailing list > > rtcweb@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > >
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Leon Geyser
- [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd love… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1 vid… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1… Maik Merten