[rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bo.burman@ericsson.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 5B6EB11E821C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.489
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.759, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vbsxhx-JW4eG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A1A21E8094 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-f5-526923c3779a
Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5E.57.16099.3C329625; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:42:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.4]) by ESESSHC017.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.69]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:42:27 +0200
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile
Thread-Index: Ac7QuEtPXArxHy7dRIOE8SxORBoczg==
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:42:26 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD6C3@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD6C3ESESSMB105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje5h5cwgg00LNCzW/mtnd2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxrEpd5kLVutUHHk6j7WBcYNaFyMnh4SAicSXz23MELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAQOM0q83jcfylnEKLFx2wGwKjYBDYn5O+4ygtgiAuoSlx9eYAexhQXcJC6fns0E EfeWWLf0BjOErSdx8u8/IJuDg0VAVWLJLi6QMK+Ar8Tnx8vBShgFZCXuf7/HAmIzC4hL3Hoy nwniIAGJJXvOQx0nKvHy8T9WCFtR4ur05UwQ9fkSrx9sZ4aYKShxcuYTlgmMQrOQjJqFpGwW kjKIuI7Egt2f2CBsbYllC18zw9hnDjxmQhZfwMi+ipE9NzEzJ73ccBMjMOwPbvmtu4Px1DmR Q4zSHCxK4rwf3joHCQmkJ5akZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamBUWL5Z2DB9QksHg9uLIr+t RdruXsLnT/rPjn7Fvsu2d/vvU9p/z9auMPBaE3nofE/S7Ia32fN+2fQ9zWKY/p0pPOJoj6j5 ys3RS8KMuW/N0ROYu3Lz5WqmiRvUW+/qJ5/5HWuwsLWDO6S75VRY6se8qfH+i3ujbNmrGW5s YHg114zHpfxNvKcSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgBOwqkoSQIAAA==
Subject: [rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile
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, 24 Oct 2013 13:43:49 -0000

Hi all,

Our recent post on comparing H.264 Constrained Baseline Profile (CBP) and VP8 objective performance with the x264 rate-control patch applied showed that H.264 CBP and VP8 are comparable.

When using that same patch applied to Constrained High Profile (CHP) settings of x264, as used in draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/>l/>, we get the following results for rate-controlled CHP:

VP8 is anchor: H.264 CHP is 16% better
H.264 is anchor: H.264 CHP is 24% better

This latter result is fully consistent with the fixed-QP tests used in the above draft.

While we still propose CBP as MTI to get maximum reach, we recommend and expect most implementations to also support CHP, which can be seen to give a clear quality advantage irrespective if rate control is used or not. Regarding technical differences between CBP and CHP, see a summary in section 8 of the above draft. There is also no difference in licensing situation between CBP and CHP.

Regarding choice of anchor; in cases like this where two competing alternatives are compared and there is no obvious anchor, it is possible to instead use a geometric mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean) that will not depend on any anchor but give a single consistent figure.

Geometric mean: H.264 CHP is 22% better

/Bo