Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison
Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Fri, 15 March 2013 16:08 UTC
Return-Path: <bo.burman@ericsson.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 6A5A421F8838 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 cfle-Shhs41x for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BFE21F8820 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f366d000004d10-b1-5143477e0ed0
Received: from ESESSHC021.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CD.C8.19728.E7743415; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:08:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.124]) by ESESSHC021.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:08:29 +0100
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison
Thread-Index: Ac4g366CgEkg0T+ZQYGtOXBTo83DpwAfnjGAAA4cpCA=
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:08:28 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DE32C48@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DE321F7@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <547ec7c4-976d-4076-900e-b67da5dae0d3@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <547ec7c4-976d-4076-900e-b67da5dae0d3@email.android.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DE32C48ESESSMB105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW6du3OgwazVYhbH+rrYLNb+a2d3 YPK4MuEKq8eSJT+ZApiiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLeHP7MXtB+hqXi96GFrA2MT7ezdDFyckgI mEisuHyGDcIWk7hwbz2QzcUhJHCIUWLr56msEM4SRolbEz4zgVSxCWhIzN9xlxHEFhEIluh9 /h7MFhZwlpjzsZ29i5EDKO4ice2UOESJlcS/pUvAWlkEVCX+b+1lBCnhFfCVaGtWgBjfwShx c8s3sBpOAVeJva1PwEYyCshK3P9+D+xQZgFxiVtP5jNBHCoi8fDiaaijRSVePv7HCjJTQkBR Ynm/HIjJLJApMXejHkgFr4CgxMmZT1gmMIrMQjJoFkLVLCRVECX5EocftkDZOhILdn9ig7C1 JZYtfM0MY5858JgJU9xR4uqM+1C2mcTupjPsEPZBRonD60whbEWJKd0PoeKuEr9mzGeGOMdK 4nSb9SxgmDALHGWUOHlsHyOy+gWMAqsY2XMTM3PSy402MQITwsEtv1V3MN45J3KIUZqDRUmc N9z1QoCQQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxqTvNddN2UuXCKwX6tmzrraok/9v/pfg l79Oaa774xMe0CduGHdtvsyO2KqE/eXmB5amW336v/lVeF76e4FtdQ1PT/Tl/j2+f4nRD/ZF vvHbomz19vXohy/JXF+QvTKcZ78l89qXmrXHO7WT7kt/C+x6Ir6rX6mJzcN0q7Fc7JE19ywF KsSVlViKMxINtZiLihMB1Z3BGtYCAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison
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 Mar 2013 16:08:33 -0000
We used the Google set of clips: desktop_640_360_30 gipsrecmotion_1280_720_50 gipsrecstat_1280_720_50 kirland_640_480_30 macmarcomoving_640_480_30 macmarcostationary_640_480_30 niklas_1280_720_30 niklas_640_480_30 tacomanarrows_640_480_30 tacomasmallcameramovement_640_480_30 thaloundeskmtg_640_480_30 I also attach two files showing more detailed results, with and without the --tune psnr option for x264 Cheers, Bo. ________________________________ From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 6:19 AM To: Bo Burman; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison Bo, did you run tests on our clips or your own clips, and with the rest of the settings our way or your way? Clip selection seems to matter a lot - which is why we published ours. Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> wrote: Hi, As said on the microphone today, we have cross-checked Google's VP8 vs H.264 comparison. Google reported bit rate gains for VP8 of 19%. However, the H.264 was at an unfair advantage due to the fact that the --tune psnr flag was not used in x264. This should of course be used when doing psnr-measurements. For vp8, this flag is set to psnr by default. When re-running the tests with --tune psnr for x264, and using version 130 of x264 instead of version 128 that was used in the Google test, the difference disappeared (1% difference). Cheers, Bo ________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
- [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 compa… Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 c… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 c… Harald Alvestrand
- [rtcweb] 答复: Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 c… 邓灵莉/Lingli Deng
- Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 c… Bo Burman