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

Harald Alvestrand <> Thu, 28 February 2013 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4923E21F8B4C for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:18:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDHw+7YZ+kDL for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080C521F8B9B for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0FF39E17B; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:18:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uWTsdzjXsnzp; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:18:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B2C939E0E6; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:18:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:18:30 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
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 22:18:34 -0000

On 02/28/2013 09:50 PM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:

Good to hear from you here too, Gaelle!
> Harald,
> 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.
Yes, the "Source: AGH on IVC" was both wrong and misspelled!

The source was the three named individuals; it was provided as input to 
the meeting.
> 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 .

Yep, we're working on it as we speak; they will be ready by the April 
meeting. But not before Orlando!

> Sincerely,
> Gaelle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:31 AM
> To:
> 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.
>                          Harald
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.