Monty Montgomery wrote:
I know Thomas already responded, but...
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Keith Winstein <[email protected]> wrote:
But what are the merits of an IETF working group performing this kind of
high-risk, high-reward research, versus doing something much more boring
like "writing a specification for VP9 to enable interoperable
implementations, and then iterating on that technology"?
Personally, I'd like to see Google submit their VPx work as an input
to this process and even more interested in seeing them participate in
development. Just like with Opus, I don't think the IETF is
Well, I think that's what Keith meant by "iterating on that technology".
I think if Google wanted to contribute their VPx work we should be very
happy to see it. VP9 has real-time encoding that shows significant
performance gains over prior generations and a decoder faster than
H.264's. Google got usable open source encoder and decoder
implementations to market before HEVC, and significant hardware support
agreements with some major chip vendors. If Google codec engineers are
going to actively participate and bring VPx to the party, that would be
a real asset.
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
