Re: [rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 16:30 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 81AD011E81AD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.552, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 iVxdshw634Of for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D0D21F9CA0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-e6-52694b2b7fbf
Received: from ESESSHC024.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7C.FC.16099.B2B49625; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:30:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.4]) by ESESSHC024.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.90]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:30:34 +0200
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile
Thread-Index: Ac7QuEtPXArxHy7dRIOE8SxORBoczv//736A///ZjlA=
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:30:33 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCEEE3@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD6C3@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <526926FF.7000602@librevideo.org>
In-Reply-To: <526926FF.7000602@librevideo.org>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja62d2aQwcvHEhYPPm5mtVj7r53d gcljyZKfTB7Nr68zBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGV8+V1ScEOyYkFfTgPjTpEuRk4OCQETiSvr PrBC2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjMKHH5eRcrhLOIUeLC0UOMIFVsAhoS83fcBbNFBKIknrV3sIPY wgKhEuv+z2OBiIdJnFo7Gcq2kpjVdQ6snkVAVeLU73awOK+Ar8Sr2Z+YQWwhgUKJb8fXM4HY nAJ6Em0zGsHqGQVkJe5/vwdWzywgLnHryXwmiEsFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8D+oDRYmr05czQdTr SCzY/YkNwtaWWLbwNTPEXkGJkzOfsExgFJ2FZOwsJC2zkLTMQtKygJFlFSN7bmJmTnq54SZG YCQc3PJbdwfjqXMihxilOViUxHk/vHUOEhJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cDoNTcy 2nXhzz72VQ33vqueqFzy5JXY47fuYhvqpBaqzuovCXwQ+jlu/r3z9VOuKV2uZHf49uDJTy82 5of29TaaHf4v7XnN7t2P27JNTaTMcubH3F3buoJ2Vv5j3cWnHZ7xZfq09xtuFSy8suF8i+nL lVtjA7Yz8yuu2rvCfFUb77ubK5smHDNZpcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAAWhMytSAgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:30:42 -0000

Hi Basil,

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought CBP was being used as a comparison point to represent the H.264 option because
> the CBP was being considered for offer under IPR terms that would be royalty free.

That was definitely part of the _potential_ reason, but unfortunately seems very hard to achieve. It however still think H.264 CBP is a better choice than VP8 since I believe the IPR landscape is more known.

> If this is the case, has the same offer or implication also been made for CHP?  I may have missed it, but I don't recall that
> being the case.

No, that was never done, but if you choose to license CBP, that also includes CHP.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Basil Mohamed Gohar
> Sent: den 24 oktober 2013 15:56
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile
> 
> On 10/24/2013 09:42 AM, Bo Burman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Our recent post on comparing H.264 Constrained Baseline Profile (CBP)
> > and VP8 objective performance with the x264 rate-control patch applied
> > showed that H.264 CBP and VP8 are comparable.
> >
> > When using that same patch applied to Constrained High Profile (CHP)
> > settings of x264, as used in draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal
> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/>,
> > we get the following results for rate-controlled CHP:
> >
> > VP8 is anchor: H.264 CHP is 16% better
> >
> > H.264 is anchor: H.264 CHP is 24% better
> >
> > This latter result is fully consistent with the fixed-QP tests used in
> > the above draft.
> >
> > While we still propose CBP as MTI to get maximum reach, we recommend
> > and expect most implementations to also support CHP, which can be seen
> > to give a clear quality advantage irrespective if rate control is used
> > or not. Regarding technical differences between CBP and CHP, see a
> > summary in section 8 of the above draft. There is also no difference
> > in licensing situation between CBP and CHP.
> >
> > Regarding choice of anchor; in cases like this where two competing
> > alternatives are compared and there is no obvious anchor, it is
> > possible to instead use a geometric mean
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean) that will not depend on
> > any anchor but give a single consistent figure.
> >
> > Geometric mean: H.264 CHP is 22% better
> >
> > /Bo
> 
> Bo,
> 
> Thanks for sharing the results of this comparison.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought CBP was being used as a comparison point to represent the H.264 option because
> the CBP was being considered for offer under IPR terms that would be royalty free.
> 
> If this is the case, has the same offer or implication also been made for CHP?  I may have missed it, but I don't recall that
> being the case.
>  If it has not, then while these numbers are nice to have, they still overlook the IPR issues completely.
> 
> --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb