IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 16:26 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 CBBF811E81D9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.607, 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 O-bmD1WjI0I6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF3411E81AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7eff8e000000eda-36-52694a3ad987
Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 58.57.03802.A3A49625; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:26:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.4]) by ESESSHC011.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.51]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:26:34 +0200
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
Thread-Index: AQHO0CDhJVyL5itEmEWrISFOF+nwVJoCjkaAgAEDvACAAEBxAP//8RyAgAAlpVA=
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:26:33 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCEECB@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <52692A21.7010609@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <52692A21.7010609@alvestrand.no>
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_BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCEECBESESSMB105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja6VV2aQwYEtJhbH+rrYLNb+a2d3 YPK4MuEKq8eSJT+ZApiiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDJW7HzHVvBKr2Lnx9VsDYzHNLoYOTgkBEwk lq5x72LkBDLFJC7cW8/WxcjFISRwmFFi44I/zBDOIkaJ2492M4FUsQloSMzfcZcRxBYRCJbo ff4ezBYWMJZY8vc6E0TcROL/ox4o20/i5992FhCbRUBVYsaH7ewgNq+Ar8S+7YeZIBbcYJT4 1rudDSTBKaArMfnRGrAiRgFZifvf74E1MwuIS9x6Mp8J4lQBiSV7zjND2KISLx//Y4WwFSWu Tl/OBFGfL3Fr+hlWiGWCEidnPmGZwCgyC8moWUjKZiEpg4jrSCzY/YkNwtaWWLbwNTOMfebA YyZk8QWM7KsY2XMTM3PSy402MQKj5+CW36o7GO+cEznEKM3BoiTO++Gtc5CQQHpiSWp2ampB alF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGRuabsn7XlszUiBU4vaRldcOMnPWB74o0f/anHlG3ZJ+7LuiZ/UT9 xIueG9yy4pamz14pd3I7E6/JRHsHZm7H8ht7js7xYZm9+fWXa8zmUkZyc0O4GtUEjj7bkOn2 6HWdQW5ylfkOptPO/lIqSw7ozwkPuztJMOVKxnrhW38bPsXbvDLYtOWGphJLcUaioRZzUXEi AGqxnXpsAgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
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 16:26:43 -0000


From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
Sent: den 24 oktober 2013 16:10
To: Bo Burman; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue


We have published our tests, exactly so that they can be evaluated.
We want to do a good job of incorporating feedback - but we will keep on insisting that the tests should have some relationship to a realistic WebRTC scenario.

In our opinion, that means working in one pass and using rate control.

[BoB] One pass: agree. Using rate control: arguably yes, but as our recent posts with the rate control patch to x264 indicate, if you intend to compare codecs and apply similar rate control to all the tested codecs it is likely that you will get comparison results similar to what you would get with fixed-QP. Tests with and without rate control will likely not give the same results in absolute terms, but it is likely the relative performance of codecs either with or without rate control will yield similar results in a fair test.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email