Re: [rtcweb] New VP8 vs H.264 tests uploaded

H.261 isn't *that* bad. It sure beats Motion JPEG snd ASCII art :)

On 5 April 2013 19:43, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote:

> On 4/5/2013 12:24 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
>
>>
>> Check your output x264 streams for fillers. If you see fillers (NAL unit
>> type 12), you are wasting bandwidth. In the example below, almost half the
>> bitrate was wasted on fillers and other stuff (SEI) that are not real
>> frames. Over RTP, you would waste even more than half the link bandwidth
>> since the small SEIs would incur the full overhead of separate RTP packets.
>> (40 bytes of RTP/UDP/IP overhead for 10 bytes of SEI.)
>>
>>
> Plus SRTP authentication tag (default is 10 bytes)
>
> These are better tests than the ones presented at IETF86, though they
> aren't perfect either of course.
>
> So I'll note that while there may be differences (in favor of either) or
> specific implementation weaknesses (solvable), I don't think there's a case
> for saying either H.264 or VP8 are technically insufficient to be an MTI,
> and either would do to avoid negotiation failure technically.  I do
> consider h.261 to be insufficient, as both the quality level/bitrate and
> the constrained resolutions would make it unacceptable to use even if it
> avoided negotiation failure. These opinions were echoed by multiple people
> in the room (and at previous IETFs).
>
> I think the questions on MTI all come down to non-technical issues.
>
> --
> Randell Jesup
> randell-ietf@jesup.org
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>