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

Bo Burman <> Thu, 07 November 2013 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A1711E8188 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:13:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.248, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aNYkt4dVijeF for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6AC11E81E6 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-d5-527bca19f4b5
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 64.28.27941.91ACB725; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:12:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:12:56 +0100
From: Bo Burman <>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <>, Gregory Maxwell <>, David Singer <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:12:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
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 <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:13:12 -0000


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 ( A more detailed analysis on the problems of previous tests can be found in The result of no difference between H.264 baseline and VP8 is also consistent with the fixed QP test results we had published earlier ( 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: [] On Behalf Of Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
> Sent: den 7 november 2013 08:40
> To: Gregory Maxwell; David Singer
> Cc: Harald Alvestrand;
> 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:
> ...and then more similar rate controls:
> 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 <> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:35 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2013, at 15:19 , Harald Alvestrand <> 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 (
> ) 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 mailing list