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

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Wed, 20 November 2013 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 357801AE027 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:26:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.725
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] 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 Vks3A-RlHgGu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5D31ADF7F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id AD68CC94A8; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:25:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:25:50 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <20131120192550.GA34900@verdi>
References: <526C6C21.90602@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BLU169-W140BE51D70DC1F7C4E297AF93E60@phx.gbl> <528D089C.9060700@googlemail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <528D089C.9060700@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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 19:26:01 -0000

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>; wrote:
> Am 20.11.2013 18:52, schrieb Bernard Aboba:
> 
>> http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf
> 
> There's much to be said about PSNR as means for comparing image quality. 
> There's also much to be said about PSNR as means for conducting 
> cross-codec quality assessments.
> 
> And little of it is pretty.

   I don't think we need to pick on the authors here -- they were quite
clear about what they were doing.

   IMHO, the point to take away from the paper is that _neither_ H.264
nor VP8 are considered "current" first choices.

   The paper basically showed _by_how_much_ H.264 falls short of current
state-of-the-art.

> I always chuckle when I see x264 being given the "--tune psnr" 
> parameter. Even core developers of x264 have strong opinions on this: 
> http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/458

   Fun reading...

   But we _don't_ need any more lengthy criticisms of comparisons right
now. We _aren't_ going to drop everything and switch to H.265 as MTI --
or any other state-of-the-art codec.

   I fully agree that both H.264 and VP8 deserve SHOULD status; and
I agree H.261, being good enough for sign-language reading, looks like
the right fallback.

   H.261 is certainly easy enough to "implement" and deploy; and I'll
bet 80%  of us are ready for the question...

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>;