[rtcweb] New VP8 vs H.264 tests uploaded

Adrian Grange <agrange@google.com> Wed, 03 April 2013 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <agrange@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE90D21F8E4C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vdrT1Hy4q-8H for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ia0-x234.google.com (mail-ia0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20D921F8DDD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ia0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f27so1410084iae.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=cTNu99XWsP5kBLbTSgjOS1M4bctF8VwZA239LjO6eDM=; b=Zkdpmgs7Mp1gXJ7qAkRmYB+TTQvkxRKIrXAYBu1YCpw1qd48INYsczTw20/s6OKc79 bL/9oGn2fZtxaSM5u1O3QnZgpjKoJs0Dswg1wUviaOqRibL9AOp4rVye0AIQttBmY92V YGd0ZcWiOgdMgjSA57o9wt+JczI4GxmFoY5Rl0mYtHlAXKNK0kMHwaijWSQFz/0T4fHb 2BDRanxucvpTCkJGQmfTkJi1VCKAa4t/doWbM4w5A9wYnUnfOyhhkz/drgEJiZvHjG5t gt1Yd+l7Yhztm3Cemk6NSwNEJ5TxwG3cmU1nHHsmN5UxODDIYBoTAFWUbVjBrfsgdzon idDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=cTNu99XWsP5kBLbTSgjOS1M4bctF8VwZA239LjO6eDM=; b=IucH7xCrmD9Bl3aNnBm2/2mjUUCID1FHAMpBTQJ/TlB+z6gq5Sp68048jERFMEcSJd sB7fGTn2E/goOYjffJ7bvp5aTBNp9ApED0w4J+D0C1y68ugfOSNBbGYVKw/iOCaeJpRT JxgWfCyb6Hba8yRuHgHr+tTG7xibZg5nDbZoLkEe9PJNy/Sj1F4n6mcnA8i198WUepY9 n0n3OXUjvOCDtZQbv0wjh3pAgodFZ3OI3iiHGrh2sU1LqPKY7xdJdaWFlw9+CRX7x4HV CTeTPP1MwsOeezWhubM/hW++XVfHKITAqDvGQjnzqgyrvsBL178h+5fhJsf1gFJvvSJr qOyw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.93.3 with SMTP id cq3mr1494644igb.70.1365006003415; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.76.80 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:20:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPVCLWbajJNS-DbXS-AJjakwovBKhhpXAmBaR_LYKjCyk7UnYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adrian Grange <agrange@google.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e3e00f33e3a04d9773920
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNsbLCkD/UB+q7uY1NNKdi3zgEUysrWu5CQkyu0VqSwnuQtRzbeoLX+fgQzsi+ki/tDfQOxeGNhxriMe7sdDwTfCQwpNLTgqPcxEV4jcBkKnzJx9dZp2IjcF2X5W2VlFUnTuR1hyqX7iH8j+HiJs11ToYlFjKIi29490FBInnkpkmAYOPm3YLvXPs4icSynnDz9E4H
Subject: [rtcweb] New VP8 vs H.264 tests uploaded
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 03 Apr 2013 16:20:09 -0000

We have uploaded a new set of test results comparing VP8 to H.264. This
latest set contains fixes for some of the problems in the previous set. We
would like to extend our thanks to those who made suggestions as to how we
could improve our methodology and encourage suggestions as to how we can
make further improvements.

In these tests we run x264 with the "veryslow" preset and VP8 with the
"good, speed 0" setting in an attempt to produce comparable results.

An overview of our results is available as follows:

- A Quality comparison (psnr):
http://downloads.webmproject.org/ietf_tests/vp8_vs_h264_quality.html

- An Encode Speed comparison:
http://downloads.webmproject.org/ietf_tests/vp8_vs_h264_speed.html

- A comparison of the aggregate time required to decode all of the clips in
the test:
http://downloads.webmproject.org/ietf_tests/vp8vsh264-decodetime.txt

All of our test scripts can either be downloaded from:
http://downloads.webmproject.org/ietf_tests/vp8_vs_h264.tar.xz
or checked out of our git/gerrit repository:
git clone http://git.chromium.org/webm/vpx_codec_comparison.git

The file README.txt, contained within, presents details of how to build and
run the tests.

The compressed video files--the output from the quality tests--can also be
downloaded:

VP8:
http://downloads.webmproject.org/ietf_tests/vp8_videos/index.html

H.264:
http://downloads.webmproject.org/ietf_tests/h264_videos/index.html

Adrian Grange