Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Bo Burman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  1) We do agree that H.264 Constrained Baseline and VP8 are comparable in
> terms of video quality. But do not forget that Constrained Baseline's twin
> sister H.264 Constrained High outperforms VP8 by a huge margin. This is
> also relevant.****
>
> ** **
>
>
Hi Bo,

I note that one of the recent editorial updates you made to the draft is
this:

 H.264 Constrained High Profile Level 1.3, logically extended to
      support 720p resolution at 30 Hz framerate is RECOMMENDED.


that is, you added the word "logically".  Is "logically extended" a term of
art here, or do you simply mean you think it makes sense to extend the

support to Constrained High Profile Level 1.3?

I also note that the discussion here is about a Mandatory to Implement codec
(that is, something at a MUST level that avoids negotiation failure).  Your
document appears to assign that to Constrained Baseline Profile Level 1.2.

The discussion of Constrained High seems to me about an optimization and
is at most an aside, and not part of the core issue to be decided.
If you have changed your view and  believe that Constrained High Profile
Level 1.3 should be mandatory to implement, then it would be useful to say
so more forcefully than above. If you have not, then I believe it is not,
strictly speaking, relevant.


My personal view,

regards,

Ted Hardie