Confirmed users
1,643
edits
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
*[http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-01.txt Why VP8 should be that codec? (rtcweb-vp8-01)] | *[http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-01.txt Why VP8 should be that codec? (rtcweb-vp8-01)] | ||
*[http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal-01 H.264 as Mandatory to Implement Video Codec for WebRTC] | *[http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal-01 H.264 as Mandatory to Implement Video Codec for WebRTC] | ||
:A number of studies [H264perf1][H264perf2][H264perf3] have been made | |||
:to compare the compression efficiency performance between H.264 and | |||
:VP8. These studies show that H.264 is in general performing better | |||
:than VP8 but the studies are not specifically targeting video | |||
:conferencing. Therefore, Ericsson made a comparison where a number | |||
:of video conferencing type sequences were encoded using both H.264 | |||
:and VP8. Eight video conferencing type test sequences were used; | |||
:three were taken from the MPEG/ITU test set (vidyo2-4) and five were | |||
:recorded by Ericsson. The sequences were all 720p 25/30Hz. | |||
:The focus of that test was to evaluate the best compression | |||
:efficiency that could be achieved with both codecs since it was | |||
:believed to be harder to make a fair comparison trying to use | |||
:complexity constraints. The results showed that H.264 High Profile | |||
:provides an average bitrate compared to VP8 of -23% (minus here means | |||
:that H.264 is better) using PSNR-based Bjontegaard Delta bitrate (BD- | |||
:rate) [PSNRdiff]. H.264 Constrained High Profile provided -16% and | |||
:Constrained Baseline Profile resulted in +16% (plus here means that | |||
:VP8 is better). | |||
*[http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-01 H.264/AVC as Mandatory-to-Implement Video Codec for RTCweb] | *[http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-01 H.264/AVC as Mandatory-to-Implement Video Codec for RTCweb] | ||