Re: [rtcweb] New VP8 vs H.264 tests uploaded (UNCLASSIFIED)

["Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <[e-mail]>]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Inline [RRR]

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:29 PM
To: Leon Geyser; Thomas Davies (thdavies); Adrian Grange; Cullen Jennings
(fluffy); Harald Alvestrand ([e-mail])
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New VP8 vs H.264 tests uploaded

Realtime/low latency and constrained bitrate are obviously important for the
actual implementation used. Thomas was pointing out that these factors have
nothing to do with the codec technology itself, since they are purely
encoder implementation optimizations. There is nothing in the VP8 or H.264
standard that uniquely provides realtime/low latency or constrained bitrate.
Those are attributes of encoder implementations which are not part of the
standard.

[RRR] Yes, it is dependent on the codec technology how the encoding and
decoding technology conceals the BER and hence affect the video quality. The
MOS subjective or objective coding performances video quality is also
dependent on the end-to-end latency for two-way or multipoint conversation
vs. one-way video streaming.

[RRR] The key is to capture all the parameters of video coding experimental
test environments under certain circumstances starting from back-to-back
codec to across the wide area network including wireline and wrieless. Let
us speak on these specific test environments including applications and the
corresponding video quality (subjective and/or objective). 

[RRR] Before generalization of the video performances from the specific test
results, let us understand what test results we have got for that specific
test environments.


 




Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE