Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 13:26 UTC
Return-Path: <bo.burman@ericsson.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 CE0FC11E8193 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.816
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 8PGCkM36Rpar for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4761011E8153 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f178e00000233b-19-526920079415
Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 07.2D.09019.70029625; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:26:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.4]) by ESESSHC017.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.69]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:26:31 +0200
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
Thread-Index: AQHO0CDhJVyL5itEmEWrISFOF+nwVJoCjkaAgAEDvACAAEBxAA==
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:26:30 +0000
Message-ID: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683ESESSMB105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjS67QmaQwZJZyhbH+rrYLNb+a2d3 YPK4MuEKq8eSJT+ZApiiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDL2LLzLVLAos2L5571sDYzzoroYOTkkBEwk rq3cxgphi0lcuLeerYuRi0NI4CijxPx1HVDOIkaJrZ+msoBUsQloSMzfcZcRxBYRCJboff4e zBYWMJZY8vc6E0TcROL/ox4o20liyc9fYBtYBFQlfh++DjSHg4NXwFfi7nZtkLCQQKHEv1tv wMZwCuhK7D4IMZJRQFbi/vd7YGuZBcQlbj2ZzwRxqIDEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/9BPaAocXX6ciaI +nyJe/++gPXyCghKnJz5hGUCo8gsJKNmISmbhaQMIq4jsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzDD2mQOPmZDF FzCyr2LkKE4tTspNNzLYxAiMnoNbflvsYLz81+YQozQHi5I478e3zkFCAumJJanZqakFqUXx RaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGJ0096o//XElzEX0VmIxA8+8lRt0+BJsNtiXdk79wCQrzHjf61yqw566 vxcNBfavYe2LtF3tfOFN1ZOGOct/Mi3ScNliKFpyYqdGT8isdVd33XkapLp7088X52a4OFYZ vjyk8+njr5f3SySnLonWtdv1Jod76h1Dh9C9uX4lCqa9fDND3ATOL1FiKc5INNRiLipOBABl eB+ObAIAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:26:37 -0000
1) We do agree that H.264 Constrained Baseline and VP8 are comparable in terms of video quality. But do not forget that Constrained Baseline's twin sister H.264 Constrained High outperforms VP8 by a huge margin. This is also relevant. 2) The "back-and forth of numbers" seems to refer to Ericsson's work where we tried to make a fair comparison to evaluate the extraordinary claims from Google that VP8 is 70 or 40 percent better than x264. We found serious issues with the way Google performed the test, maybe the most striking were the use of padding (+8% for x264) and excessive number of threads (+10% to +40% for x264) to add overhead to x264. That Google managed to remember the threading parameter only when it helped VP8 (the speed test) is also quite remarkable. 3) Regarding IPR, this is a difficult topic, but we're not at all convinced that VP8 is royalty free. For example, there is an IETF IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/) where the IPR holder seems unwilling to license (on any terms), and http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/german-vp8-infringement-cases-show.html and http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/itc-institutes-investigation-of-nokias.html show that there are in fact ongoing litigations regarding VP8 - and this is only skimming the surface of what is available in public space. /Bo From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand Sent: den 24 oktober 2013 13:12 To: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue On 10/23/2013 09:42 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote: On 10/23/2013 02:51 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Just a reminder: The back-and-forth of numbers doesn't change the core question of this debate. Both codecs are capable of high quality video encoding, and performance numbers are comparable. The real core question is the IPR issue. The tradition of the IETF says that allowing only business models that can sustain royalty agreements and royalty payments is Bad for the Internet. The dominant video codec, H.264, is a royalty-required codec. Do we switch now, or do we give up and live with royalties forever? Harald, I would like to see some references to the tradition of the IETF that you've quoted. For the record, I agree with the sentiment, but I'd like to be able to back up the claim itself with references or explicit decisions that were made in that regard. I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, just looking for citations to back up the arguments, both on and off list. Basil, very happy to provide references! RFC 3979, a core document about IPR in the IETF, 2005: 8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. The complete section gives some more details, but this is the central quote. You may also enjoy reading the section of RFC 6569 (the guidelines that were followed in the OPUS work) that deals with IPR: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6569#page-8 -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Victor Pascual Avila
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar