Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Thu, 07 November 2013 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.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 B550711E80DC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:40:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 dkZFpSrOl4CB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15B111E81AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:40:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2367; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383842424; x=1385052024; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=PizDwRuneBcHVv7N0i98AMa8hmz4LvGuFYss0uMisvc=; b=fa5EiaR16VPyTOkew4G2fRM2ennXCsS4e4OURMNXeuQJEK9v9lA91OzY DxOESSm5o84ap0oBL4BCyfTCXlMwTfZt/zGgNyjXOAJWUcBwyzG0D2PFP IvLxZP9Q9a2OYIqYEiCWkJ7+tLICS4Xv/0mXhptIMkE139EuDQ/Y4V0sf 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAIHBe1KtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagwc4U75ESoElFnSCJQEBAQICAQEBNzEDCxIBCA4KHjcLJQIEAQ0FCYd4Dbx4jg8RgTkCBYQwA5gMgS+QW4FogT6BcTk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,652,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="282088978"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2013 16:40:16 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA7GeG5W031654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:40:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.50]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:40:16 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
Thread-Index: AQHO29gJj5emc/4RUEOTx5kqzaPd1g==
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:40:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CEA126F5.1C425%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQHnhzBoSM1J5rCpCBFg6HgRWMCbRoV+1ATVyy1WmtBwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.82.236.15]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <DDC7D9D7B788444A86C346D279C9F791@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
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, 07 Nov 2013 16:40:30 -0000

The previous comparisons used poor x264 settings and different rate
controls.
The latest comparisons used better x264 settings:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09064.html
...and then more similar rate controls:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09126.html

In the end, it is a draw, with or without rate control. Which was expected
since the actual coding tools are virtually identical. We could have saved
a lot of time and posturing if the codec experts on both sides would have
just admitted this. Performance is a wash (when ignoring high profile).

Mo


On 11/7/13, 4:47 AM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:35 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 15:19 , Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com> wrote:
>> Re performance, and just so that silence isn't taken as me agreeing
>>with David Singer on this topic:
>> I haven't wanted to distract from the debate at hand by tossing more
>>numbers around, but we do think VP8 is significantly better than
>>Baseline. The exchanges with Ericsson have shown that we need to be
>>meticulously clear in defining what we mean by that and how we measure
>>it, so I won't post more numbers until I feel that our description is
>>precise enough.
>
> I also would like to see some tests which tell us where we really are.
>A lot of us are engineers who like having facts, even if, as many of us
>realize, the comparative performance is a minor part of the debate.
>
> I welcome Ericsson's efforts to get clarity in this area; they seem to
>have been working very hard to get a level playing field measure, and if
>you can help that effort, this would be all to the good.

Hm.  Maybe I'm confused: I thought slide 9 from the H.264 "joint
presentation" in Atlanta (
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-rtcweb-10.pdf )
showed baseline needing 16% more bitrate than VP8 at the same quality,
and the debate was more over high profile and the magnitude of VP8's
lead wrt baseline.

(And, also in agreement: quality isn't the thing to debate in
excruciating detail, but I did think at least this point wasn't
controversial. Did I miss a post?)
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb