Re: [rtcweb] Performance of H.264...

Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <treising75@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3FC1AE506 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:53:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIM8CvsRI9Yl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C401AE1F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u14so4377903lbd.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:53:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=alOxzKq3/pTB5a0aSgbSXGlDLmPOlwua8zMErkXO6Hw=; b=GPJf2ovbI971LXmH2M3u5/eOJs2mNmPoFM4r2nmBaXHIjGU2mLF1Phpk3unSv2xYam 4XhPh0gPeJTyTKYi0IFKkOoeTzFrJY7Xe4eqbis702IcqFIqwcyI2H4kFKmt0O9NxOch rZwqAsrWaGZv41mv6FcaCI+A7t0O555MWAvVr9VmHuiC9pJhHxnl7q0JSRN4MxmBZELq 4NezM9krIU2t1HtRMzbZwZXxR8BAry20SyN1KC80iB1uhhxhqgFw1AQSMzpAGu9AV87J 6dU7u37jeyprxYs4GjHqrq2hD5Uh6qmTxEUJZ2tJQ6YgzLhzIJ/Vqy8x/iHMQgWtb8Ce xaMg==
X-Received: by 10.152.19.2 with SMTP id a2mr2109884lae.2.1384984403156; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.170.174] ([89.105.252.154]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sd11sm19134202lab.2.2013.11.20.13.53.21 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:53:21 -0800 (PST)
References: <526C6C21.90602@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BLU169-W140BE51D70DC1F7C4E297AF93E60@phx.gbl> <528D089C.9060700@googlemail.com> <20131120192550.GA34900@verdi>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <20131120192550.GA34900@verdi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CD37D7F1-55D3-40CD-B632-34C21A802669@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a)
From: Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:53:21 +0200
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Performance of H.264...
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:53:32 -0000

From my opinion we should stick with h.263 even the minimal risk or licences for the implementer. H261 is a no go for me.

Thomas Reisinger

> On 20.11.2013, at 21:25, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>; wrote:
> 
> Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>; wrote:
>> Am 20.11.2013 18:52, schrieb Bernard Aboba:
>> 
>>> http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf
>> 
>> There's much to be said about PSNR as means for comparing image quality. 
>> There's also much to be said about PSNR as means for conducting 
>> cross-codec quality assessments.
>> 
>> And little of it is pretty.
> 
>   I don't think we need to pick on the authors here -- they were quite
> clear about what they were doing.
> 
>   IMHO, the point to take away from the paper is that _neither_ H.264
> nor VP8 are considered "current" first choices.
> 
>   The paper basically showed _by_how_much_ H.264 falls short of current
> state-of-the-art.
> 
>> I always chuckle when I see x264 being given the "--tune psnr" 
>> parameter. Even core developers of x264 have strong opinions on this: 
>> http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/458
> 
>   Fun reading...
> 
>   But we _don't_ need any more lengthy criticisms of comparisons right
> now. We _aren't_ going to drop everything and switch to H.265 as MTI --
> or any other state-of-the-art codec.
> 
>   I fully agree that both H.264 and VP8 deserve SHOULD status; and
> I agree H.261, being good enough for sign-language reading, looks like
> the right fallback.
> 
>   H.261 is certainly easy enough to "implement" and deploy; and I'll
> bet 80%  of us are ready for the question...
> 
> --
> John Leslie <john@jlc.net>;
>