From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@rim.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>,
 "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AA26526250@XMB106BCNC.rim.net>
References: <CD5381E5.95C4C%stewe@stewe.org> <512F7840.6070407@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <512F7840.6070407@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request
 for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)
Precedence: list

Harald,

You may want to clarify that the document you provided is not a report but a=
n input document, and a later revision corrected the source of it.
Further tests and comparisons happen at that meeting (not necessarily very c=
onclusive) and has pointed out by Rob, further tests for the next mpeg meeti=
ng were requested. Resolution 14.1.2 is pretty clear .

Sincerely,
Gaelle 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=
 Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:31 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request f=
or 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 a=
t quality evaluation or removed them.

It seemed to me that there was rough consensus on the mailing list earlier t=
hat the quality of the two codecs was close enough that this was not going t=
o convince anyone who had already taken a strong position based on the IPR i=
ssues.

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 submit=
ted 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 th=
at meeting was to continue the evaluation effort, with new data being made a=
vailable before the next meeting in April.

I'm enclosing the report with the test results; the tests were not done by G=
oogle; the scripts are available if anyone wants to run them for themselves.

                        Harald


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential infor=
mation, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-c=
lient 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 immedia=
tely reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use,=
 dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by uninte=
nded recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.