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

["Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[e-mail]>]

Baseline Profile was in the original 2003 version of H.264, along with the optional constraint (constraint_set1_flag) to exclude some rather exotic error resilience tools (ASO/FMO/RS). This constrained Baseline Profile was universally deployed. The unconstrained Baseline Profile was not as widely deployed. The 2009 version merely acknowledged industry practice by giving it an official name, Constrained Baseline Profile, which is easier to say than Baseline Profile with constraint_set1_flag=1. There were no changes in the bitstream or tools, just an easier official name.

To be fair, H.264 interop has not been a painless endeavor over the years, in part due to multiple profiles. Implementers have worked through many issues to achieve the nearly universal interop enjoyed today across hundreds or thousands of vendors and implementations. VP8 should have an easier time, since it doesn’t have multiple profiles, packetization modes, etc. But VP8 will go through some of the same pains when many implementations flourish (software and hardware). The pain is not felt yet since there are only two vendors (Google and Mozilla) in close contact using a shared software implementation.

Mo


On 11/4/13, 11:35 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On 04/11/2013 11:26 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
Interop is certainly a consideration and that's where H.264's advantage lies.  (H.264's only real technical advantages are interop and the possibility of existing hardware support).

    When was Constrained Baseline Profile defined? Based on Wikipedia I'm guessing it was sometime in 2009. If so, how widely is it implemented?

    We keep on referring to H.264 as a black box that is supported universally, but when you dig into the specifics (specific profile on specific platforms) the story is a lot less clear.

Gili