Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for Theora baseline codec

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Thu, 29 March 2012 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
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 E271321F88BD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 J-GRGru6HzVl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5F021F8858 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.40.98] (rrcs-98-103-138-67.central.biz.rr.com [98.103.138.67]) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AE37652669 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:39:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4F74740E.6050004@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:39:10 -0400
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CACrD=+8DTq2M=FkscQUvQiwMwckYYSw6SRne+3X2wJKHOG2ciw@mail.gmail.com> <4F746F04.7030800@librevideo.org> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE2256B0F42@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE2256B0F42@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for Theora baseline codec
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, 29 Mar 2012 14:39:17 -0000

On 03/29/2012 10:34 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> VP8 is the only option that makes any sense for WebRTC going forward.
>> It is high performant, it has optimizations for realtime usage (in the
>> reference implementation), it is already implemented in a wide variety
>> of software (Skype, browsers [Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera]),
>> and it is also implemented in hardware (as well as supported by the
>> Android OS).
>>
> So are you saying that Adam's presentation today was incorrect?
>
> Quoting:
>
> "H.264:
>
> More deployed hardware acceleration
> Well known, clearly identified patent pool; royalties due for some uses
> Quality, compression ratio, and complexity approximately equal to VP8
>
> VP8:
>
> Can be hardware accelerated, but current deployment is very low
> No specific patents asserted1, no one collecting royalties
> Quality, compression ratio, and complexity approximately equal to
> H.264"
>
> If so I think you need to be a little more technically specific as to why you see one better than the other.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
I'm not saying that.

What I am saying, and what I left out of that short list above, is that
VP8's royalty-free basis and patent grant from the only known owners of
patents on the technology, *in addition* to its technical suitability,
make it the only choice that makes any sense.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org