Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Video Codecs and the Future A1-‐4
Speakers • Anatoli Levine – Director of Product Mgmt
Developer Tools BU – Spirent
• Vince Puglia – Developer Advocate – Dialogic
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
Codecs – From Analog to Digital
• 1982 -‐ Audio CD commercially available • 1991 – Cinepac video codec created
There should be at least one chart here
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
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 • …
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
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
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
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
VP9 – Beyond the Press Release Vince Puglia
Not sure if you heard but VP9 is out…
Source: hkps://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/discuss-‐webrtc/_5hL0HeBeEA
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 PETAB
YTES OF DA
TA
WHY THIS IS BAD
Client view Provider View
InspiraEon
Source: hkps://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/01/vp9-‐webrtc
My setup for tesEng
PowerMedia XMS
• Transcode • Conference • Play files • Recording • Image Overlays
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)
HIGH QUALITY
LOW QUALITY
NO PACKET LOSS INDUCED PACKET LOSS INDUCED
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
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
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
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(?)
Thank You Please complete the session evaluaEon
