IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 ECD121AE0C3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:23:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WswJdafZjJIy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s11.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s11.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A281AE071 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W137 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s11.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:23:34 -0800
X-TMN: [UtZORJJP4OZzlrn4TjgNZLda/yJPfHhRRz1rEu9Vy88=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W137AFD6B8AE1D1A206D67EC93E60@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_80363990-e719-48b0-abff-f9ffab09b95e_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:23:33 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <528D089C.9060700@googlemail.com>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD6C3@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>, , <526C6C21.90602@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, <BLU169-W140BE51D70DC1F7C4E297AF93E60@phx.gbl>, <528D089C.9060700@googlemail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2013 19:23:34.0318 (UTC) FILETIME=[012CC4E0:01CEE626]
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 19:23:42 -0000

> There's much to be said about PSNR as means for comparing image quality. 
[BA] Section III A states that the comparison really doesn't relate to interactive/low delay uses (e.g. use of B frames, etc.) which is what we'd care about on this mailing list.   But it's the first study of its kind so it seemed worth posting a link to (in hopes that someone else might have a link to something more relevant).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email