[rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 28 February 2013 15:31 UTC
Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 9DC7021F89BF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDXtBEzOyUdj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B2B21F88B4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF6A39E0E6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:31:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPzI7XFJmszA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:31:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [193.157.215.103] (unknown [193.157.215.103]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23DBF39E056 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:31:13 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <512F7840.6070407@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:31:12 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CD5381E5.95C4C%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CD5381E5.95C4C%stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070502000704030806080907"
Subject: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)
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, 28 Feb 2013 15:31:24 -0000
Sigh. I thought that after the drubbing draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti got at the previous meeting, the authors would have either improved the attempts at quality evaluation or removed them. It seemed to me that there was rough consensus on the mailing list earlier that the quality of the two codecs was close enough that this was not going to convince anyone who had already taken a strong position based on the IPR issues. But if we are going to play the video codec quality evaluation game, I also have something I want to have on file here. Google has submitted VP8 as a candidate for standardization in ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 WG11 (better known as MPEG). As part of that submission, we submitted a quantitative evaluation of VP8's quality compared to the then-current "IVC Test Model", which also included numbers compared to the AVC Baseline "anchors" that were part of the project description for the IVC effort. This was contributed to MPEG's January meeting in Geneva; the decision at that meeting was to continue the evaluation effort, with new data being made available before the next meeting in April. I'm enclosing the report with the test results; the tests were not done by Google; the scripts are available if anyone wants to run them for themselves. Harald
- [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-we… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Michael Procter
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Paul Coverdale
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… Stephan Wenger
- [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Age… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re:… Rob Glidden
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re:… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re:… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re:… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec quality evaluations (Re:… Gaelle Martin-Cocher
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenha… David Singer