From nobody Wed Sep 2 07:28:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E4C1B2BF3; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N9Vbdd0BjGIc; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 426421A6F57; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t82EHKhV000315 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:17:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local To: IETF list From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <55E704F0.7090501@nostrum.com> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:17:20 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 07:28:06 -0700 Subject: [video-codec] Blog: NETVC goals and status X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adam Roach List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 14:17:23 -0000 IETF [bcc NETVC working group]: The IETF blog has a brief post up about the goals and status of the IETF NETVC (Internet video codec) work now underway: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/09/aiming-for-a-standardized-high-quality-royalty-free-video-codec-to-remove-friction-for-video-over-the-internet/ /a From nobody Mon Sep 21 14:37:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DCE1AC3D3 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:37:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdEMnJ7-b8m0 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6B961AC3CD for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by padbj2 with SMTP id bj2so2332092pad.3 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:37:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VmS5eIURVR8igCJfdui3v+3Vq3EDBm61psq4WKnTJkg=; b=PeqsYghu8gJ3PwuGJBEVQDTpkFhjdbteYeNGZJckzwgDp/SttsSC7/aNfZDm23Liz/ rmEjw6lOIuvUOGc02IaTly3hq5KFcY3e4+Lydbsmre8p1x8dN2BrCCxYtCO9UQUhwkgU if1nrNeS3KPz10b4ZeJqxBUcUGoL40UPHODbzvOQbb/eAlVS4a4yJrMWq52O8FnWcB+6 bj1/tnylumOiehrkBeTW/KgaBF2QnsDrkuSLmjDlnfuBxdMQMaMFdyEBhBu7NRXAiiip VrrmE+MH/Pe84lruaBGJptNlply4j9w+vGNO1HcLnRGogo9j6RL7vLy2dlwR7cGuaJ1V uOSA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlo2ZNq4N20bZBRJibhegwTtASsgmiIAOYO+LkYENvZExc6SOsEOHzT2lzmCy6AqhMtv1yy X-Received: by 10.66.102.7 with SMTP id fk7mr20906934pab.119.1442871424317; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:101:80fc:224:7e7a:91ff:fe9e:8126? ([2620:101:80fc:224:7e7a:91ff:fe9e:8126]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cn4sm26282026pbc.94.2015.09.21.14.37.01 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT) To: "video-codec@ietf.org" From: Thomas Daede X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5600787B.8010309@mozilla.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:36:59 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [video-codec] Bitrate ranges for requirements and testing drafts X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:37:07 -0000 I currently have this for the BD-Rate ranges in my Testing draft: Low bitrate: 0.005 - 0.017 bpp Medium bitrate: 0.017 - 0.058 bpp High bitrate: 0.058 - 0.2 bpp where bpp is width * height * framerate. These rates are spaced equally on a logarithmic scale. bpp is not perfectly resolution independent. We could instead specify targets based on video resolution instead. Another way to specify the ranges is by metric score, rather than rate, but determining the ranges is a bit problematic. How I would probably set these ranges would be to take these rates, and use them to set the bounds based on a well regarded encoder (x264, for example). The Requirements draft also currently specifies overlapping ranges. I don't really see any reason to overlap them. Rate targets are also needed for comparing videos. I suggest the logarithmic centers of these rates: Low: 0.009 (450kbps 1080p24) Medium: 0.03 (1.5Mbps 1080p24) High: 0.1 (5Mbps 1080p24) Let me know how these currently fit into the use cases. From nobody Wed Sep 23 14:06:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203821B2D46 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.613 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dPzPmaaBeY5W for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.scl3.mozilla.com [63.245.214.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D42791B2D30 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDF8C2625 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:06:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org Received: from smtp.mozilla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.mail.scl3.mozilla.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OwmeMm3sWPIY for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.252.27.106] (corp.mtv2.mozilla.com [63.245.221.32]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx1.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D90E0C0309 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5603145B.3000509@xiph.org> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:06:35 -0700 From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "video-codec@ietf.org" References: <5600787B.8010309@mozilla.com> In-Reply-To: <5600787B.8010309@mozilla.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [video-codec] Bitrate ranges for requirements and testing drafts X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:06:40 -0000 Thomas Daede wrote: > Another way to specify the ranges is by metric score, rather than rate, > but determining the ranges is a bit problematic. How I would probably > set these ranges would be to take these rates, and use them to set the > bounds based on a well regarded encoder (x264, for example). This is also highly content-dependent (i.e., it can vary by an order of magnitude). So if you want to go this way, you will likely have a different range for each set of test sequences, which may not be a bad thing. From nobody Thu Sep 24 01:07:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2407C1B37EC for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:07:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-akbtSLXmLs for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B2C1B37EB for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC577C5B48; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:07:30 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPYj3NApv3t9; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:07:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:b074:4fe9:a71d:d00a]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95E437C566B; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:07:28 +0200 (CEST) To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" , "video-codec@ietf.org" References: <5600787B.8010309@mozilla.com> <5603145B.3000509@xiph.org> From: Harald Alvestrand Message-ID: <5603AF40.2010004@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:07:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5603145B.3000509@xiph.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [video-codec] Bitrate ranges for requirements and testing drafts X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:07:33 -0000 On 09/23/2015 11:06 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote: > Thomas Daede wrote: >> Another way to specify the ranges is by metric score, rather than rate, >> but determining the ranges is a bit problematic. How I would probably >> set these ranges would be to take these rates, and use them to set the >> bounds based on a well regarded encoder (x264, for example). > > This is also highly content-dependent (i.e., it can vary by an order > of magnitude). So if you want to go this way, you will likely have a > different range for each set of test sequences, which may not be a bad > thing. Uh...... perhaps we should bite the bullet and just set rate control parameters? > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec From nobody Thu Sep 24 12:12:11 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3D11A879B for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:12:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qzIoN6510Wz for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E8621A879E for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so81042932pad.1 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:12:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iQe6D0I6ehOP88/s09DO89neBLfjaanyFs3tE4kB62k=; b=RosT6TLL61Dcbx1ZNorhKm6027rjcZ3QSwtDWaTDFg7v8+Khi5cqf+QoPBb7nHU8LM VbO308EWdUsl96Qzj62FpabkZ10yguy71RH6QJTK4W3hMBE9PHB0s4QA1lNBQMtoutwv PMHkkmN7zhHuQmVTjX5SRhxFWU6grAWdk0472yVl+BLCF60q0MPxtRMU2ysgTxu7BnxL xrUeIp07g+A3RAL4upHFsxvaRwj8402zpDqvCKxJxlSg2DgtsDEoKVk1zGB4r5qj2X8B 2abs41h5dgUUJ3eKTGqp+OQ+F6CCspYfJX2mYhn2zpFkYdCbgwGuEoZDONIwCN+qwmaw 4N0A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmKt7u/TtHeFid583g9xE5UhC22aAHf6DMN3tQwgRziK6y/h/ullPjvY9B+EslRqswBp1t X-Received: by 10.66.219.102 with SMTP id pn6mr1571648pac.80.1443121926524; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:101:80fc:224:7e7a:91ff:fe9e:8126? ([2620:101:80fc:224:7e7a:91ff:fe9e:8126]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qo3sm15061905pac.10.2015.09.24.12.12.04 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT) To: video-codec@ietf.org References: <5600787B.8010309@mozilla.com> <5603145B.3000509@xiph.org> <5603AF40.2010004@alvestrand.no> From: Thomas Daede Message-ID: <56044B03.6010701@mozilla.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:12:03 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5603AF40.2010004@alvestrand.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [video-codec] Bitrate ranges for requirements and testing drafts X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:12:09 -0000 On 09/24/2015 01:07 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Uh...... perhaps we should bite the bullet and just set rate control > parameters? I'm not sure what you mean here - you mean specify quantizers as the bounds? From nobody Fri Sep 25 07:29:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA301A1B19 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:29:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jvzenVMxKNG9 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83221A1AC9 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A660E7C5393 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:29:34 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jWK8lUc9AoNJ for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:29:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:f12e:3da3:90ae:2477] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:f12e:3da3:90ae:2477]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A8087C5387 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:29:33 +0200 (CEST) To: video-codec@ietf.org References: <5600787B.8010309@mozilla.com> <5603145B.3000509@xiph.org> <5603AF40.2010004@alvestrand.no> <56044B03.6010701@mozilla.com> From: Harald Alvestrand Message-ID: <56055A4C.8030405@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:29:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56044B03.6010701@mozilla.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [video-codec] Bitrate ranges for requirements and testing drafts X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:29:38 -0000 Den 24. sep. 2015 21:12, skrev Thomas Daede: > On 09/24/2015 01:07 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> Uh...... perhaps we should bite the bullet and just set rate control >> parameters? > > I'm not sure what you mean here - you mean specify quantizers as the bounds? I've argued for a long time that a codec that can't be rate-controlled is useless for interactive Internet usage - and that therefore, it makes sense to actually use rate controls when we test the codec. We're now faced with a situation where we have specified test conditions that specify certain bitrate targets - but the only means we have of hitting those bitrate targets is to encode the file over and over again until we find something that has a bitrate that matches our target. If we could, instead, specify the bitrate target when encoding the file, and measure the resulting quality metrics on the file after bitrate controls are applied, we would have, in my opinion, a test scenario that more resembles real-life usage. Of course, fixed-quantizer encodings are reasonable to use when trying to measure the impact of codec tweaks that don't interact with the rate controls. But that's not the only thing we want to measure. > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec >