Re: [rtcweb] H261/MPEG-1 video quality

In that case, excellent point :)

Gili

On 14/11/2013 2:54 PM, Maik Merten wrote:
> I included the JavaScript MPEG decoder so that people can have a quick 
> look. I don't propose that videos should be decoded in JavaScript for 
> WebRTC. If anything this merely demonstrates that old codecs have low 
> processing requirements (duh!).
>
> Maik
>
> Am 14.11.2013 20:48, schrieb Gili:
>>
>> Just a reminder: Native applications don't necessarily have access to
>> Javascript (they're running outside of a browser) so a Javascript-based
>> solution sounds problematic to me. Everything we need should be
>> accessible from WebRTC's Native API. If that happens to include a
>> Javascript engine under the hood, so be it, but I just want to make sure
>> this is understood.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gili
>>
>> On 14/11/2013 2:35 PM, Leon Geyser wrote:
>>> >>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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb