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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:31 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> 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.