Dear Mr. Li, experts,
to repeat it again, we completely agree on the argumentation to use H.263 for the tests. It is incorporated in the simulation scenario since the very first version we provided last november. The one and only problem is the availability of appropriate software.
In your email the question which software should be used is left open again. Thanks to Mr. Campos-Neto there is an excellent proposal if a third party can help us with bitstreams and a decoder executable.
There are two other questions remaining open still.
Is the test scenario document we provided accepted by both sides now ? Additionally we provided you with the draft of the joint document. Is this document accepted as well ?
The deadline for submission is approaching. We really need to coincide for this topics to avoid long lasting discussions at the meeting.
Best Wishes Gero Baese
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Adam Li [mailto:adamli@icsl.ucla.edu] Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2001 10:17 An: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM; Baese Gero Cc: John D. Villasenor; Tao Tian; Jay Fahlen; Yung Lyul Lee; So Youg Kim; Jeong-Hoon Park; Paul E. Jones; Barry Aronson Betreff: Video codec for H.323 Annex I
Mr. Baese, experts,
For evaluation of error protection schemes, it really make sense to use video codec that are mature and widely used instead of a particular video codec that is still early in development stage.
The sole reason that there is a software implementation of H.26L does not at all make it a suitable criteria for selection of error protection schemes. The current development status of H.26L and its complexity (which means it is not likely to be used on mobile environment immediately even after it is finished) indicates that it is currently not the proper platform to judge the algorithms for Annex I - no matter it has an implementation or not.
Also, I would like to remind Mr. Baese that the the joint discussion between Q.13 and Q.15 on video codec issue has reached conclusion at Geneva. Here I quote the last paragraph of the related section from the meeting report:
"The Q.15 Rapporteur's final comment was that if you want to do testing that requires error resilience, then H.263 is the clear choice. There needed to be strong justification for using another codec."
I hope there should be agreement on the testing codec soon.
Regards,
Adam Li
Adam H. Li Image Communication Lab (310) 825-5178 (Lab) University of California, Los Angeles (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
Mr. Baese, experts,
For the testing condition document, I believe we have settled on most of the issues. So here is the testing document, and please take a look and let me know if there is anything else that we need to discuss.
About the feature comparison document, I suggest that we both draft documents for the point to point comparisons with the technical reasoning.
From the current schedule situation, it seems that it is more realistic for
us to submit two independent documents. We can go over them at the meeting, and combine them then if necessary.
Regards,
Adam
---------- Adam H. Li Image Communication Lab (310) 825-5178 (Lab) University of California, Los Angeles (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
participants (2)
-
Adam Li -
Baese Gero