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

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Thu, 07 November 2013 17:13 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 07A1711E8188 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:13:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.248, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 aNYkt4dVijeF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6AC11E81E6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-d5-527bca19f4b5
Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 64.28.27941.91ACB725; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:12:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.4]) by ESESSHC006.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.36]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:12:56 +0100
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
Thread-Index: AQHO17c3PqvqQ+r03EOU8JzVggQ6A5oZP8KAgAACwoCAAASFgIAANWEAgABzdYCAABkcAA==
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:12:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFDC3CB@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
References: <CAAS2fgQHnhzBoSM1J5rCpCBFg6HgRWMCbRoV+1ATVyy1WmtBwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CEA126F5.1C425%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEA126F5.1C425%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7kqeogg9krTS1W7ZKwOHHjNLPF iwdzmCzW/mtnt5jf/5HFgdVj68kfbB5Tfm9k9ViwqdRjyZKfTB7/zvazBbBGcdmkpOZklqUW 6dslcGXsW7KaqWChQsW6yUoNjIekuhg5OSQETCTeLP3ACGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgCKPE9pnv mCCchYwSSyffZAGpYhPQkJi/4y5Yh4hAocSx88vZQGxmAW+JvWe+M3cxcnAIC0RL3GjIhiiJ kTh89jkbhB0mcfTMc2YQm0VAReLxy49gY3gFfCVapz4BqxESKJWY/OclE4jNKaAvseHDW7B6 RgFZifvf77FArBKXuPVkPhPE0QISS/acZ4awRSVePv7HCmErSaw9vB2qXkdiwe5PUGdqSyxb +JoZYq+gxMmZT1gmMIrNQjJ2FpKWWUhaZiFpWcDIsoqRozi1OCk33chgEyMwtg5u+W2xg/Hy X5tDjNIcLErivB/fOgcJCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYJR/eiQ5+Oi5PgXVjDNl 3CUMvO9SzAOqmy6kvLpt//n2paSJaa/7X1pEvFb3mDVZ1ePCyc/H8qNSUw8lxwlE/VCUj4k0 eOz7YuPGk/bGe6/lyweZ2hTPWSfZUBddyTopUljQTmOqF8uRHVYFD999UDN2TVbL7fy2xVal mullAq9iJWvpnBMZSizFGYmGWsxFxYkA/A9GkXsCAAA=
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
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, 07 Nov 2013 17:13:12 -0000

Agree.

Some previous tests between VP8 and H.264, like the one from the Atlanta presentation, have included a rate controller which does something similar to QP-toggling for VP8 but not for H.264. About two weeks ago we sent out a modified test where both codecs are allowed to QP-toggle, and that resulted in no difference between H.264 baseline and VP8 (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09126.html). A more detailed analysis on the problems of previous tests can be found in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09064.html. The result of no difference between H.264 baseline and VP8 is also consistent with the fixed QP test results we had published earlier (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08052.html). We have long argued that compression efficiency tests are best made this way, i.e., without a rate controller, since small changes in the rate control parameters can have a huge impact on the end result, as the example of QP-toggling shows. 

But I fully agree to that quality isn't the thing to debate at the moment.

/Bo Burman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
> Sent: den 7 november 2013 08:40
> To: Gregory Maxwell; David Singer
> Cc: Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
> 
> The previous comparisons used poor x264 settings and different rate controls.
> The latest comparisons used better x264 settings:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09064.html
> ...and then more similar rate controls:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09126.html
> 
> In the end, it is a draw, with or without rate control. Which was expected since the actual coding tools are virtually
> identical. We could have saved a lot of time and posturing if the codec experts on both sides would have just admitted
> this. Performance is a wash (when ignoring high profile).
> 
> Mo
> 
> 
> On 11/7/13, 4:47 AM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:35 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2013, at 15:19 , Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com> 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 (
> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-rtcweb-10.pdf ) 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?) _______________________________________________
> 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