IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:13 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 DB9FF21F8A98 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 Wle91j1ikYL5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E02821F8A14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f0d6d000007e61-64-5142136069db
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.BA.32353.06312415; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:13:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.124]) by ESESSHC002.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.24]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:13:52 +0100
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison
Thread-Index: Ac4g366CgEkg0T+ZQYGtOXBTo83Dpw==
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:13:52 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DE321F7@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW6isFOgwbrNnBZr/7WzOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr4//0k8wFp1gqdk6dxdTAeJG5i5GTQ0LARGLlu31QtpjEhXvr 2boYuTiEBA4xSuydsxvKWcIoMaXjBiNIFZuAhsT8HXfBbBEBdYnLDy+wg9jCAmYSbR0nmSHi 1hIXHk1kh7D1JHY9us/UxcjBwSKgKjF7vg5ImFfAV+LcvrVgYxgFZCXuf7/HAmIzC4hL3Hoy nwniIAGJJXvOQx0nKvHy8T9WkDESAooSy/vlIMp1JBbs/sQGYWtLLFv4mhlivKDEyZlPWCYw Cs9CMnUWkpZZSFpmIWlZwMiyipE9NzEzJ73cfBMjMIgPbvltsINx032xQ4zSHCxK4rzhrhcC hATSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTBur81hLcu+/F1Qeunnx4vDt93PU2C6ws5zQXil qoZ7+9atc005U5W5ryR7JuTK/yo4pSvqcztclK3ha/B0w7LNPktK5T7qXSuvTZuxZ/p+roZG hoNLRAVPpW04p9onK5/9WCbe3WO/qO2klJkfgj1/CQokSkQLu1kwpZWFzFbM3f+cL++UohJL cUaioRZzUXEiAF4grskwAgAA
Subject: [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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:13:55 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email