TPEPlatform/MediaRecorder: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
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]
Confirmed users
1,643

edits

Navigation menu