Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti

Adam Roach <> Tue, 26 February 2013 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCB821F86CC for <>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:29:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.292
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zp7NtIqPTbb0 for <>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82B821F8700 for <>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:29:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r1QKT8JW023116 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:29:09 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:29:08 -0600
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:29:14 -0000

I want to caution people about what they are -- and are not -- seeing in 
the demonstration videos pointed to by this draft. I don't think the 
draft is intentionally deceptive on this point, but a casual reader 
might fail to make a somewhat subtle (but catastrophically important) 

The videos in section 4 are a pretty convincing comparison between 
hardware encoding and software encoding on same-class platforms. They 
happen to use different codecs, but that's a non-factor compared to the 
overwhelming difference between encoding horsepower.

What they absolutely don't show is a comparison of H.264 to VP8. I don't 
beleive the authors intend to do so, but other parties might be tempted 
to construe the videos in that light. Doing so would be a 
straightforward application of "trick 3b" from "How to cheat on video 
encoder comparisons" ( Of 
*course* coding on a DSP will look better than coding on a CPU that 
draws roughly the same power.

I'm not discounting the availability of H.264 hardware encoders as a 
factor, and the videos do a pretty good job of showing off the 
advantages of hardware encoding. But that's all they show.


On 2/26/13 12:08, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> I would like 25 minutes for presentation of information key to draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti that is not interrupted and 15 minutes for Q/A for the work.
> We have spent many hours of meeting time discussing the way we were going to make a decision around codecs and information needed, but we have not yet spent time discussing the actually information to make the decision. This draft addressees several very key issues, including the actually quality comparison of VP8 and H.264. I think that spending any less time than this would result in a situation where the WG was not making an decisions with the information available. Similarly, other  people that have written other drafts with similar or different views also need to speak up about how much time they need and that we make sure everyone has time to explain the key information, people have time to ask questions about it, and we can make an informed decisions instead of having to discuss the video codecs at many future meetings.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list