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

Rob Glidden <> Thu, 28 February 2013 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F58621F8B4C for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:08:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2GPL0sc0T4xU for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D1621F8AB4 for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2013 19:08:08 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2013 19:08:08 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2013 19:08:07 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1362078487; bh=XG2spaEN0jrG2JmIXe+o25jde+jDqhCrshduAn4JjhE=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=pNV4GBLvvrJCdfqg+GDGIFoSGBWe8Q1Vwd9tDoCehJdnGATo050LDLK0IIqhlG6MPuOog+rp+6AnukIuXECz28sFDTKEXtkh8PFV6G6qnCojbI/UNVQEVBH9e12S0Z8nbexTH0O7mmdzG0NNKpJC5Hvl66WdQsa/OlLLGQZ0tTc=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: OMsWbqwVM1nVrmvPymGKHprk.0l9ZP5vcOEx4ArDdRsNwbL w1eF63dwvoN28AtyrOsaIqQ0y3x6tovjZOa1REZc3btR_7wja5wnJp7j8evi DXYp3PzG79zJ7nuJZfhP.cglJeycgUfT3Hs4cjkJkb7mEH9NOK7IuP6EXMB_ saUKPRCRrmJK40mGPL2y9zlAIvehSKX9KWT8QC40CItdW7UdgzDtjLiuUGKz 9T6OdBhjYN8GV090MLqweRD2gxGCtfLEnBblJUhc4r2Pax.K7fN80ossaUAX ABFiJDtStEanp63b1vng96wLNXhf.CSZ8jjlStCmC.yGBAn5AD.AFC1VT3AB QSHN7zm_Cm9JVVD6ZBdbFajeOg5WDvIrsQnU4nIeUaMefXQmKGsspUEBoxOQ d3JJb.oNMRXooYIYXtdfFXFkbW02QGQOUxpuZgr3gicet9Shv18f4E8nLYEM fyq26GOEjujz9R9PpLBgzR4aNS324NhD2BI1zCZnlXa7ubraTHKHjaDBmZG4 IZWyAyuLyQ5gI33c4oUqBzoAA9wMiyesN1Bcp64ewTF755.OpKMPrS5SKuiJ eY71cIa9ZPit_dww-
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xflwSnaswBCuS46GvTyhPI4RUJpgPG5UXouB5Vxqo4t9fsHeH0I-
Received: from [] (rob.glidden@ with plain) by with SMTP; 28 Feb 2013 11:08:07 -0800 PST
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:08:06 -0800
From: Rob Glidden <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <>,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010706080907040409080406"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)
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, 28 Feb 2013 19:08:11 -0000

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


 From Resolutions, the 103rd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2013-01-21/25, Geneva, 
Switzerland  [SC 29/WG 11 N 13250]

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










*/Exploration -- Internet Video Coding/*







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







*IVC Core Experiment CE1: Overall Codec Testing*







*IVC Core Experiment CE2: Improvements of ITM*





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