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/…
-r
_______________________________________________
Wikivideo-l mailing list
Wikivideo-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivideo-l
--
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org