TPEPlatform/MediaRecorder: Difference between revisions

TPEPlatform/MediaRecorder (view source)

Revision as of 03:53, 4 July 2013

1,161 bytes removed , 4 July 2013

→‎Reference

Cjcool.tw

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/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]

TPEPlatform/MediaRecorder: Difference between revisions

TPEPlatform/MediaRecorder (view source)

Revision as of 03:53, 4 July 2013

Navigation menu

Search