Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 15 March 2013 12:00 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 38CE121F9164 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.264
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD=1.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 kvEy7uxb0Yrk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D52A21F9161 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B8B39E130; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:00:10 +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 Dox75eo38yzb; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:00:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.184.11.202] (host-95-199-139-202.mobileonline.telia.com [95.199.139.202]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 596EE39E03A; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:00:07 +0100 (CET)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DE321F7@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DE321F7@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----B6KH5HPWWJ65SE986YX89C804XWN5Y"
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:19:11 +0100
To: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>,"rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <547ec7c4-976d-4076-900e-b67da5dae0d3@email.android.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Cross-check of Google VP8 vs H.264 comparison
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:00:12 -0000

Bo, did you run tests on our clips or your own clips, and with the rest of the settings our way or your way? Clip selection seems to matter a lot - which is why we published ours.

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>As said on the microphone today, we have cross-checked Google's VP8 vs
>H.264 comparison. Google reported bit rate gains for VP8 of 19%.
>However, the H.264 was at an unfair advantage due to the fact that the
>--tune psnr flag was not used in x264. This should of course be used
>when doing psnr-measurements. For vp8, this flag is set to psnr by
>default. 
>
>When re-running the tests with --tune psnr for x264, and using version
>130 of x264 instead of version 128 that was used in the Google test,
>the difference disappeared (1% difference). 
>
>Cheers,
>Bo
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.