IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 28 October 2013 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 0E0BC11E82E5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.151, BAYES_05=-1.11, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 GIgSuENYFeMV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8E811E82E1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r9S1R6qu031615; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:27:06 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 3633_afd6_0e85b6c6_3f70_11e3_9b39_001e6722eec2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:27:06 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6856C0003; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:27:05 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <526C6C21.90602@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:28:01 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD6C3@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD6C3@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Performance of rate-controlled H.264 Constrained High Profile
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:27:27 -0000

On 2013/10/24 22:42, Bo Burman wrote:

> VP8 is anchor: H.264 CHP is 16% better
> H.264 is anchor: H.264 CHP is 24% better

Why don't you guys switch over to something logarithmic (e.g. something 
like dB) so that you don't have to do this VP8 is anchor/H.264 is anchor 
thing?

Regards,   Martin.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email