I think it's crucially important that examples that are being considered actually be tested in a reproduceable manner before claims about performance/speed/efficiency are made. I'm not directing this at you, Ralph, of course, nor anyone else on this list, but I am having flashbacks to the rtcweb discussion [0] regarding H.261 vs. MPEG-1 vs. Theora vs. whatever, where 5+ year old assumptions about codecs were being flashed around, and when comparisons where actually made [1], the discussion changed tone and direction completely.
So, this does kind of fall back onto "what are the actual goals/requirements we're trying to meet" needing to be clearly specified, so that we can then test the formats we have available against those requirements and make an intelligent decision.
[0] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10382.html [1] https://media.basilgohar.com/rtcweb/
On 11/12/2014 04:20 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
On 2014-11-10 11:37 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Dirac-in-MXF might be wise for the future.
FWIW, Brendan confirmed he was interested in Dirac for lossless support. Although he also cited speed as a reason not to use VP9...
https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webm-discuss/V2cf-fEV7_o/T...
-r
Wikivideo-l mailing list Wikivideo-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivideo-l