Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)

Gaelle Martin-Cocher <> Thu, 28 February 2013 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6820F21F8901 for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:50:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.203
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m06JV+FAKAn7 for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C878421F89D3 for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:50:42 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 0a412830-b7f716d0000040f3-29-512fc315bfb8
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (SBG) with SMTP id 82.02.16627.513CF215; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:50:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:50:28 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::99b8:8d0e:cdcd:c00d]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:50:28 -0500
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)
Thread-Index: AQHOFcjDTigXDSswI0yAtDwbUIIW7JiPu3gA
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:50:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrDKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC5bjwtK7oYf1Ag13nNSyO9XWxWaz9187u wORxZcIVVo8lS34yBTBFNTDaJCWWlAVnpufp29kk5uXllySWpCqkpBYn2yr5pKYn5igEFGWW JSZXKrhkFifnJGbmphYpKWSm2CqZKCkU5CQmp+am5pXYKiUWFKTmpSjZcSlgABugssw8hdS8 5PyUzLx0WyXPYH9dCwtTS11DJTvdhE6ejOajr1kLugUq+hp3sDYwfubpYuTkkBAwkXj/5Sg7 hC0mceHeejYQW0igjUni00vrLkYuIHslo0T/s04WCGcuo8Th1s3MIFVsAkYSM078YgKxRQSC JXqfv2cEsYUFiiR+/bjGDhEvlmg/8JMRwjaSOLZkLSuIzSKgKnH80EqwGl4BT4nFJ18zQ2z2 lZi5byZQnIODU0BXYvZHPRCTUUBF4uTTcJAKZgFxiVtP5jNB3CwgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/rBC2 osTeZ0eZIOp1JBbs/sQGYWtLLFsIsYlXQFDi5MwnLBBblSRav55nmsAoPgvJillI2mchaZ+F pH0BI8sqRsHcjGIDM8PkvGS9osxcvbzUkk2M4OShYbCD8f17i0OMAhyMSjy827brBwqxJpYV V+YeYpTgYFYS4fWbChTiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7E6AoMn4nMUtzJ+cDEllcSb2xggJujJM4r EigaKCSQDkxV2ampBalFMHOYODhB9nBJiRQDE05qUWJpSUY8KC3GFwMTo1QD45Y5NmtnM3t8 CrDUe8c2I5Bjac9enbPxmy+mcActc364ePn/LUxix9tLNWZZqJ6+uOp1mDurtfyST88bLcJV d82rc3rnanWRjWG9xW9NXv1LSUzqO5qm77/iLVVt9U28//e8ZWl3ix8oCEslyi+pmNnz/2e4 V8Wdz4ZfF72/H/J7+67bhvwdzEosxRmJhlrMRcWJAFqb9S5fAwAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: 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: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:50:58 -0000


You may want to clarify that the document you provided is not a report but an input document, and a later revision corrected the source of it.
Further tests and comparisons happen at that meeting (not necessarily very conclusive) and has pointed out by Rob, further tests for the next mpeg meeting were requested. Resolution 14.1.2 is pretty clear .


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:31 AM
Subject: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)

Sigh. I thought that after the drubbing draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti got at the previous meeting, the authors would have either improved the attempts at quality evaluation or removed them.

It seemed to me that there was rough consensus on the mailing list earlier that the quality of the two codecs was close enough that this was not going to convince anyone who had already taken a strong position based on the IPR issues.

But if we are going to play the video codec quality evaluation game, I also have something I want to have on file here.

Google has submitted VP8 as a candidate for standardization in ISO/IEC
JTC1 SC29 WG11 (better known as MPEG). As part of that submission, we submitted a quantitative evaluation of VP8's quality compared to the then-current "IVC Test Model", which also included numbers compared to the AVC Baseline "anchors" that were part of the project description for the IVC effort.

This was contributed to MPEG's January meeting in Geneva; the decision at that meeting was to continue the evaluation effort, with new data being made available before the next meeting in April.

I'm enclosing the report with the test results; the tests were not done by Google; the scripts are available if anyone wants to run them for themselves.


This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.