Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd love it if patents evaporated)
Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 19:35 UTC
Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.com>
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 B94D711E8127 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:35:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.916, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 gRz7rj3yz9zq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFBC21E8137 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id el20so1957130lab.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:35:32 -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=/OfyS0GH93lUQ3PvWAno8VkiprZAn5iqnWMvmGsNwA4=; b=CIUAnJLMnyYRyI/d+02ANzCOdOetUL6xV6hE+5JpYmTzAR2rAnr78NeFQfewNiKwV4 bBdBTLhA3wynbTcYaOpT9P4g6aosAIrOW9BgRk4QoEYzZVpslJSWPgSaBXb2/dJYsUzU bl7GdfkMwG1Josn+q/VIbph6yj/xt1xXtEi94Wh6quLgcfTa2JqAVKueM8cDi1mWkwys +5ot7/KxiPHpc9q2FMDAmB3ldZ6MlLj2GupZVeNDJO9qGaEEgKOTckyg7z33Ulp5OGwu GT/KUzPxG4xEC1lfJkH2Jv/8/es0+OYuqgnsq95VlzIUcpWJ0nJk//MafxqSkA5ZrGx/ gU4Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.1.70 with SMTP id 6mr668917lak.60.1384457732538; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:35:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:35:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5285209D.7020407@googlemail.com>
References: <5284AB73.5030505@googlemail.com> <5285209D.7020407@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:35:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiSROwRznKZWD4kjn8Vu7SrUVwOnHN1EJ-PTgR=WQmcxAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013c670e5ac94104eb282f01"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd love it if patents evaporated)
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, 14 Nov 2013 19:35:47 -0000
>>This includes a completely JavaScript-based MPEG-1 player for those that don't happen to have a fitting decoder installed >>(also, yay, JavaScript is fast enough now for simple video decoders!). I recreated the encoded files to ensure there are no >>b-frames and documented the encoder settings accordingly. Thanks for sharing. Looks better than what I expected. On 14 November 2013 21:12, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hello again, > > to allow for having a quick look at some test sequences I put together a > very very sloppy overview page at > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14053306/mpeg1/index.html > > > This includes a completely JavaScript-based MPEG-1 player for those that > don't happen to have a fitting decoder installed (also, yay, JavaScript is > fast enough now for simple video decoders!). I recreated the encoded files > to ensure there are no b-frames and documented the encoder settings > accordingly. > > Best regards, > > Maik > > > Am 14.11.2013 11:52, schrieb Maik Merten: > > Hello all, >> >> in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09721.html a >> sample of H.261 video was provided, connected to a (rhetorical?) >> question if this provided quality would be acceptable for users. Clearly >> that provided sample is of very low and unacceptable quality. >> >> Just for comparison, here are two CIF samples at roughly 256k created by >> a somewhat modern encoder (ffmpeg with rate/distortion optimization): >> >> >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14053306/mpeg1/irene-256k.mpg >> >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14053306/mpeg1/mad900-256k.mpg >> >> >> (encoded as MPEG-1 video, as the "h261" encoder in ffmpeg crashes when >> using rate/distortion optimization. I understand MPEG-1 if used without >> b-frames is similar to H.261 in coding efficiency, but mostly adds more >> flexibility regarding frame sizes. >> >> ffmpeg -i sign_irene_cif.y4m -vcodec mpeg1video -mbd rd -trellis 2 -cmp >> 2 -subcmp 2 -g 100 -vb 256k irene-256k.mpg ) >> >> Even without formal testing it is obvious that H.261 and/or MPEG-1 video >> is clearly outperformed in terms of coding efficiency by H.264 and VP8. >> However, personally, speaking as an end-user, I would very much prefer >> this video quality over audio-only calls (in cases where transcoding is >> not available), as the video produced still carries useful information. >> Also H.261/MPEG-1 is blazingly fast, can be dealt with in software, and >> is not exceedingly difficult to implement. >> >> Of course a MTI codec with higher coding performance is much preferable. >> However, if no such high-performance codec with licensing terms that are >> acceptable for all communities can be agreed on I think it may be wise >> to seriously evaluate the option of implementing an outdated codec for >> the sake of interoperability. In practice, most calls will negotiate to >> H.264 and VP8 anyways, but sporadic negotiation failures that are >> difficult to account for by the user are still to be expected if no MTI >> codec is defined at all. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Maik >> > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Leon Geyser
- [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd love… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality (was: I'd … Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality Maik Merten
- [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1 vid… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1… Maik Merten