Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)

[Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>]

The full decision is broader, and is in the public meeting resolutions 
(14.1.1 to 14.1.5), below.

Rob

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 From Resolutions, the 103rd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2013-01-21/25, Geneva, 
Switzerland  [SC 29/WG 11 N 13250]
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n13234c.htm

14.1 Internet Video Coding
14.1.1 The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents:

*No.*

	

*Title*

	

*TBP*

	

*Available*

*//*

	

*/Exploration -- Internet Video Coding/*

	

*//*

	

*//*

*13353*

	

*Internet Video Coding Test Model (ITM) v 4.0*

	

*N*

	

*13/02/20*

*13354*

	

*IVC Core Experiment CE1: Overall Codec Testing*

	

*N*

	

*13/01/25*

*13355*

	

*IVC Core Experiment CE2: Improvements of ITM*

	

*N*

	

*13/01/25*


14.1.2 The video subgroup would like to point out that an alternative 
technology with potential benefits over the current ITM4 has been 
proposed in M28182 and M28187 for consideration in the IVC 
standardization. A Core Experiment (CE1) was defined for systematic 
testing under comparable conditions. NBs and interested experts are 
encouraged to perform further study of the technology proposed in M28182 
and M28187 regarding the IVC requirements.

14.1.3 The contributors of M28182 and M28187 are asked to provide more 
information about potential restrictions which might prohibit the 
progressing of their technology into an MPEG standard, in case it would 
be considered beneficial from the perspective of IVC development.

14.1.4 WG11 requests its members to review M28182 and M28187 and provide 
suggestions concerning their usability in the IVC process.

14.1.5 WG11 thanks the AUNB for the comment on IVC (M28365). WG11 
considers the actions taken at this meeting to be sufficient in 
responding to AUNB's request.

14.1.6 The video subgroup thanks ITU-T for the viewing equipment that 
was used in the context of evaluating IVC contributions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2/28/2013 7:31 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Sigh. I thought that after the drubbing draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti 
> got at the previous meeting, the authors would have either improved 
> the attempts at quality evaluation or removed them.
>
> It seemed to me that there was rough consensus on the mailing list 
> earlier that the quality of the two codecs was close enough that this 
> was not going to convince anyone who had already taken a strong 
> position based on the IPR issues.
>
> But if we are going to play the video codec quality evaluation game, I 
> also have something I want to have on file here.
>
> Google has submitted VP8 as a candidate for standardization in ISO/IEC 
> JTC1 SC29 WG11 (better known as MPEG). As part of that submission, we 
> submitted a quantitative evaluation of VP8's quality compared to the 
> then-current "IVC Test Model", which also included numbers compared to 
> the AVC Baseline "anchors" that were part of the project description 
> for the IVC effort.
>
> This was contributed to MPEG's January meeting in Geneva; the decision 
> at that meeting was to continue the evaluation effort, with new data 
> being made available before the next meeting in April.
>
> I'm enclosing the report with the test results; the tests were not 
> done by Google; the scripts are available if anyone wants to run them 
> for themselves.
>
>                        Harald
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb