On 03/20/2015 01:41 AM, Thomas Daede wrote: > On 03/19/2015 05:17 PM, Keith Winstein 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"? > If VP9 could be shown to meet our requirements for performance and > licensing, I would be supportive of that path. However, I don't believe > that it currently does. > > In the testing draft, while I specified methods of testing codecs, I did > not specify an absolute performance goal. We will need to set one. Opus > achieved state-of-the-art performance, which was highly beneficial to > its adoption. VP9 does not achieve this yet.
Just as a matter of curiosity, which state of the art performance is it that you think VP9 hasn't achieved yet? I also wonder a bit about how we should treat evaluation of performance - a traditional video codec development technique has been to develop a codec that takes hours-per-second to encode a video, and then seek to optimize it by a factor of a hundred before shipping it. But sometimes, there's just limits to how much one can achieve. How should we treat that aspect in evaluation? _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
