Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

Gregory Maxwell <> Thu, 07 November 2013 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD14A21E819D for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 01:47:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9D6e2T-NwPw for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 01:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC52B21E80F7 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 01:47:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x18so223692lbi.16 for <>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:47:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+4CTRs5YzT4zgvB8fzH9dzilPRtCscZiF1ZxiaX1JHU=; b=mQNx7DTLoP9/4m8N2T8e3VnqyhaNPVzqvELZiLYvKS3RXqrGe5Xa2ixV6xPJTDtKo8 5nic4xFXouKba+5zq1GbURObxxDq3kvGsUJHz6CEMBRQZihiBlOHG2VmG2IbQ2VIVKAz uAW4BKvfVc6lBCMhkZQs4fBesba/O2nsyxuFX8WqWb7rgLl1bxKBdb2TCvPFZn6wwWag kNafKncJr3AReF2fNiyWkkzxKKwYf8u1gCywx3+loRjArfNI4HxpJXwMf6BqMeRIC70q Q8hIKbtSWCljD4ps/bZVhJkiOAekTw1VVBwcDwTsLK0YTkzWy20JtFl9w5Cyc/loW0yW 7NDg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id f8mr683475lbc.40.1383817620542; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 01:47:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:47:00 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: tYDoQPiD6YhnkcwS3y4pT_xg5yk
Message-ID: <>
From: Gregory Maxwell <>
To: David Singer <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
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, 07 Nov 2013 09:47:06 -0000

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:35 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 15:19 , Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:
>> Re performance, and just so that silence isn't taken as me agreeing with David Singer on this topic:
>> I haven't wanted to distract from the debate at hand by tossing more numbers around, but we do think VP8 is significantly better than Baseline. The exchanges with Ericsson have shown that we need to be meticulously clear in defining what we mean by that and how we measure it, so I won't post more numbers until I feel that our description is precise enough.
> I also would like to see some tests which tell us where we really are.  A lot of us are engineers who like having facts, even if, as many of us realize, the comparative performance is a minor part of the debate.
> I welcome Ericsson's efforts to get clarity in this area; they seem to have been working very hard to get a level playing field measure, and if you can help that effort, this would be all to the good.

Hm.  Maybe I'm confused: I thought slide 9 from the H.264 "joint
presentation" in Atlanta ( )
showed baseline needing 16% more bitrate than VP8 at the same quality,
and the debate was more over high profile and the magnitude of VP8's
lead wrt baseline.

(And, also in agreement: quality isn't the thing to debate in
excruciating detail, but I did think at least this point wasn't
controversial. Did I miss a post?)