O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Video Codecs and the Future by Vince Puglia

494 visualizações

Publicada em

Vince Puglia's presentation at the 2016 Real-Time Web Solutions event.

Publicada em: Tecnologia
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

Video Codecs and the Future by Vince Puglia

  1. 1. Video  Codecs  and  the  Future   A1-­‐4  
  2. 2. Speakers   •  Anatoli  Levine   –  Director  of  Product  Mgmt   Developer  Tools  BU   –  Spirent   •  Vince  Puglia   –  Developer  Advocate   –  Dialogic  
  3. 3. Anatoli  Levine   •  Director  of  Product   Management,  Developer   Tools  BU,  Spirent   CommunicaEons   •  President  of  InternaEonal   MulEmedia   TelecommunicaEons   ConsorEum  (IMTC)     •  Founded  in  1936,  public   company  (LSE:  SPT)   •  Leader  in  CommunicaEon   TesEng  Tools   •  Leading  supplier  of   enabling  soluEons  and   technologies  for  developers  
  4. 4. Codecs  –  From  Analog  to  Digital   •  1982    -­‐  Audio  CD  commercially  available   •  1991  –  Cinepac  video  codec  created  
  5. 5. There  should  be  at  least  one  chart  here  
  6. 6. At  first,  everything  was  simple  in  WebRTC   •  WebRTC  started  from  Google  project  in  2011   •  Standardized  in  W3C  and  IETF   •  G.711,  OPUS  and  VP8  for  media     Web  Browser   JavaScript/HTML5  ApplicaEon   Media  Stack/   Transport  
  7. 7. WebRTC  Codecs  –  A  Game  of  Chess   •  VP8,  H.264,  VP9,  H.265,  VP10…   •  Royalty  Free  versus  not   •  Google  -­‐  VP8   •  Nokia  –  no  VP8   •  Cisco  –  H.264,  openH264   •  2015:  IETF  –  both  VP8  and  H.264  are   mandatory   •  Google  –  VP8   •  …  
  8. 8. Browsers,  Browsers…   •  Browser  as  a  key  communicaEon  component     –  JavaScript  APIs   –  Codecs/WebRTC  media   •  Chrome,  FireFox,  Opera,  Safari,  IE,  Edge…   –  Not  created  equal   –  Boast  various  levels  of  codecs  and  API  support   •  Resiliency  on  unmanaged  networks  is  dependent  on   codecs  –  requires  in-­‐browser  implementaEon    
  9. 9. WebRTC  Video  Codecs  Today   •  VP8  –  widely  deployed,  with  excepEon   •  H.264  –  deployed,  with  quality  issues  and  lack  of  SVC  support   –  IMTC  created  open  source  test  tool  for  browser  video  bit-­‐stream  tesEng   •  VP9  –  opEonal,  supported  in  Chrome,  Edge   –  Absolute  majority  of  YouTube  content  re-­‐encoded  in  VP9   –  SVC  available   –  Hardware  acceleraEon  support  limited   •  H.265/HEVC  –  no  support  in  the  browsers   –  Licensing  issues  are  squarely  in  the  way  
  10. 10. Future  Codecs  –  Alliance  for  Open  Media     •  Established  in  2015   •  Founding  members:  Amazon,  ARM,  Cisco,   Google,  Intel,  Microsog,  Mozilla,  Nehlix  and   NVIDIA   •  “Open.  Fast.  Royalty-­‐free.”   •  OpEmized  for  use  over  Internet   •  Supports  ultra  high  definiEon   •  First  source  code  build  available  as  of  April  2016  
  11. 11. Future  Codecs  –  IETF  NETVC   •  Internet  Video  Codec  (NETVC)  WG,  formed  in  2015   •  Goal  is  to  produce  high  quality  video  codec,  open  and  with   favorable  IPR   •  Requirements  cover  use  cases  of  video  streaming,  IPTV,   conferencing,  surveillance  and  more   –  Include  resoluEons  up  to  4k,  scalability   •  Current  submission    -­‐  Thor  video  codec    
  12. 12. VP9  –  Beyond  the  Press  Release   Vince  Puglia  
  13. 13. Not  sure  if  you  heard  but  VP9  is  out…   Source:  hkps://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/discuss-­‐webrtc/_5hL0HeBeEA    
  14. 14. WHY  THIS  IS  GOOD   Rio  2016  Olympics  by  the  Numbers   •  Number  of  global  viewers  expected  to  watch  Rio  2016    More  than  3.6  billion  (3.635  billion  for  London  2012)   •  Number  of  American  viewers  expected  to  watch  Rio  2016    More  than  217  million  who  watch  2012  London  Olympics   •  Viewers  likely  to  use  second-­‐screen  devices  during  the  Olympics    85  percent  of  likely  Olympic  viewers,  according  to  Global  Web  Index   •  Number  of  minutes  users  are  likely  to  spend  on  online  video    41  minutes  on  average,  according  to  Global  Web  Index   Source:  hkp://digiday.com/brands/markeEng-­‐rio-­‐2016-­‐olympics-­‐numbers/       ~100  PETABYTES  OF  DATA  
  15. 15. WHY  THIS  IS  BAD  
  16. 16. Client  view   Provider  View  
  17. 17. InspiraEon   Source:  hkps://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/01/vp9-­‐webrtc      
  18. 18. My  setup  for  tesEng   PowerMedia  XMS   •  Transcode   •  Conference   •  Play  files   •  Recording   •  Image  Overlays    
  19. 19. Throkling  bitrate  for  quality  adaptaEon   High-­‐quality-­‐  1500  kbps  vs  1000  kbps   (33%  deviaEon)     Standard-­‐quality–  1000  kbps  vs  600   kbps  (40%  deviaEon)     Low-­‐quality–  800  kbps  vs  500  kbps   (37.5%  deviaEon)     Ultra-­‐low-­‐quality–  500  kbps  vs  400   kbps  (20%  deviaEon)      
  20. 20. HIGH  QUALITY   LOW  QUALITY  
  21. 21. NO  PACKET  LOSS  INDUCED  PACKET  LOSS  INDUCED  
  22. 22. Decoder  performance  comparisons  –  VP8  vs  VP9   VP8  Decoder   FR(fps)   BR(kbps)   ProcessTime   (usec)   Size           Avg   640*480   25.07   457.93   2774.65   640*480   25.11   413.34   2844.11   640*480   25.08   441.53   2804.84   640*480   25.00   392.21   2715.77   640*480   25.08   442.17   2740.47   AVG   25.07   429.43   2775.97   VP9  Decoder   FR(fps)   BR(kbps)   ProcessTime   (usec)           Avg   25.07   503.05   3743.63   25.08   436.93   3750.69   24.93   466.19   3640.17   24.20   426.60   3563.95   25.00   470.14   3700.30   24.86   460.58   3679.75   VP9  vs.  VP8   0.99   1.07   1.33   VP9  decoding  consumes  about  30%  more  cycles   than  VP8  decoding  
  23. 23. Encoder  performance  comparisons  –  VP8  vs  VP9   VP9  vs.  VP8   1.00   0.86   1.31   VP9  encoding  consumes  about  30%  more  cycles  than  VP8   encoding***   VP9  Encoder   FR(fps)   BR(kbps)   ProcessTime   (usec)           Avg   30.01   627.14   16936.92   30.01   627.14   16936.92   30.03   611.58   12571.01   30.03   634.36   11114.81   VP8  Encoder   FR(fps)   BR(kbps)   ProcessTime   (usec)   Size           Avg   640*480   30.03   747.91   13420.88   640*480   30.01   716.50   12729.60   640*480   30.03   719.03   9934.55   640*480   30.02   719.33   7848.25   ***  Trade  off  modes  (speed  vs  compression  efficiency)  selected  based  on  conferencing  and  real  Eme  communicaEon  requirements    
  24. 24. RenegoEaEon  not  just  for  I-­‐Frames  anymore   An  I‑frame  is  an  'Intra-­‐coded  picture',  in  effect  a  fully  specified  picture,  like  a  convenEonal  staEc   image  file.   A  P‑frame  ('Predicted  picture')  holds  only  the  changes  in  the  image  from  the  previous  frame.     A  B‑frame  ('Bi-­‐predicEve  picture')  saves  even  more  space  by  using  differences  between  the  current   frame  and  both  the  preceding  and  following  frames  to  specify  its  content.   Other  codecs  (including   VP8)  only  send   renegoEaEon  requests  in  I-­‐ frames   VP9  can  send  renegoEaEon   requests  in  I-­‐frames  AND  P-­‐ frames   Source:  hkps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression_picture_types    
  25. 25. Conclusions  and  Future  ConsideraEons   Conclusions   •  VP9  is  a  badass  codec…..  But  then  so  is  VP8   •  Both  VP8  and  VP9  dynamically  adapt  to  varying  network  bitrates  equally   •  Both  VP8  and  VP9  respond  from  minor  to  extreme  network  packet  loss   •  Bits  on  the  wire  –  VP9  outperforms  VP8  (confirmed)   •  Processing  –  VP9  consumes  30%  more  cycles  for  decode  and  encoding  (based   on  our  tesEng  and  trade-­‐offs  selected)   Future  ConsideraEons   •  Quality  measurements  too  subjecEve  -­‐  No  more  waving  or  thumbs  up   –  QoE  measurement   •  VP9  vs  H.264/H.265   •  Mobile(?)  
  26. 26. Thank  You   Please  complete  the  session  evaluaEon  

×