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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 21 November 2013 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 426901AE08C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:19:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 w4zCHv5i1Osz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4F11AD8E3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE75A39E96F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:49 +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 dYfGN5jXhEVP for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:7646:a0ff:fe90:e2bb]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E46FE39E10F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:48 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <528DDE43.4080505@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:47 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD6C3@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>, <526C6C21.90602@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BLU169-W140BE51D70DC1F7C4E297AF93E60@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W140BE51D70DC1F7C4E297AF93E60@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030706070808080207090507"
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:19:59 -0000

On 11/20/2013 06:52 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Sorry to interrupt the ongoing codec rant-o-rama, but some may find 
> the following pre-print paper of interest:
> http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf

Yes, locking the QP on VP9 (and VP8) harms performance.