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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 02/28/2013 08:08 PM, Rob Glidden wrote:
> The full decision is broader, and is in the public meeting resolutions 
> (14.1.1 to 14.1.5), below.

Yep, that's the output of the discussion; the file I provided was part 
of the input.

>
> Rob
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From Resolutions, the 103rd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2013-01-21/25, 
> Geneva, Switzerland  [SC 29/WG 11 N 13250]
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n13234c.htm
>
> 14.1 Internet Video Coding
> 14.1.1 The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents:
>
> *No.*
>
> 	
>
> *Title*
>
> 	
>
> *TBP*
>
> 	
>
> *Available*
>
> *//*
>
> 	
>
> */Exploration -- Internet Video Coding/*
>
> 	
>
> *//*
>
> 	
>
> *//*
>
> *13353*
>
> 	
>
> *Internet Video Coding Test Model (ITM) v 4.0*
>
> 	
>
> *N*
>
> 	
>
> *13/02/20*
>
> *13354*
>
> 	
>
> *IVC Core Experiment CE1: Overall Codec Testing*
>
> 	
>
> *N*
>
> 	
>
> *13/01/25*
>
> *13355*
>
> 	
>
> *IVC Core Experiment CE2: Improvements of ITM*
>
> 	
>
> *N*
>
> 	
>
> *13/01/25*
>
>
> 14.1.2 The video subgroup would like to point out that an alternative 
> technology with potential benefits over the current ITM4 has been 
> proposed in M28182 and M28187 for consideration in the IVC 
> standardization. A Core Experiment (CE1) was defined for systematic 
> testing under comparable conditions. NBs and interested experts are 
> encouraged to perform further study of the technology proposed in 
> M28182 and M28187 regarding the IVC requirements.
>
> 14.1.3 The contributors of M28182 and M28187 are asked to provide more 
> information about potential restrictions which might prohibit the 
> progressing of their technology into an MPEG standard, in case it 
> would be considered beneficial from the perspective of IVC development.
>
> 14.1.4 WG11 requests its members to review M28182 and M28187 and 
> provide suggestions concerning their usability in the IVC process.
>
> 14.1.5 WG11 thanks the AUNB for the comment on IVC (M28365). WG11 
> considers the actions taken at this meeting to be sufficient in 
> responding to AUNB's request.
>
> 14.1.6 The video subgroup thanks ITU-T for the viewing equipment that 
> was used in the context of evaluating IVC contributions.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On 2/28/2013 7:31 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>                        Harald
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>