Re: [rtcweb] Performance of H.264...

Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <xiphmont@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728C91AE29E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:42:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NNgg9LPHvKKv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CB81AE1A6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q8so6427429lbi.40 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:42:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7xc98ZrTChyC8BHNyGpqMTkpzDWhGQ7c32pNmYaRaBY=; b=B89n7EH/N9ox6zhGid/yheW0rtD7EE7PftBEXuQMJRDYF0LBHY9u4T4Hh0ZSbXJ22/ ZlZL+GZ/+2Y0ycTx9ZjPNMRziToAhq79IDC4I6CC4MDeB6noJFVbp+NHFLlOZevtrQmO fCcpIUt0zN/2pRQOExHkyUEumRbQYtTNpd2BLZ0C2Hwg/H9bAJaqBDVR+igOlhuKMV4+ FUt0KdKclmGut7g+NIWqOWiRNI00KC7gLK2H93x9FSMdP1LBbJsr+A+a9y480FSWOQul pgoAk1iRNqxf84ytGduKeTxvZgWoYMb/BRvsm1EI17UqqVQayn+U2uBZBQTRSIxwdEOA 7rEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.22.228 with SMTP id h4mr26978laf.71.1384976543534; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:42:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.128.202 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:42:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131120192550.GA34900@verdi>
References: <526C6C21.90602@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BLU169-W140BE51D70DC1F7C4E297AF93E60@phx.gbl> <528D089C.9060700@googlemail.com> <20131120192550.GA34900@verdi>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:42:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CACrD=+-w+S0iAiKNjEgV7aTm5LzQyVhnM9j9aR9nvLSuEa4=RA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Performance of H.264...
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:42:32 -0000

>  I don't think we need to pick on the authors here --

Yeah, actually we do.

> they were quite
> clear about what they were doing.

They were clear about what, 'why they think that's meaningful' is
considerably less clear.

>    IMHO, the point to take away from the paper is that _neither_ H.264
> nor VP8 are considered "current" first choices.
>
>    The paper basically showed _by_how_much_ H.264 falls short of current
> state-of-the-art.

No, PSNR is by itself a completely worthless metric for comparing two
different codecs.  Not 'lacking' but 'worthless'.

Monty