Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Development

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 8th February 2003, 15:30   #81  |  Link
Suzahara
Penguin Pilferer
 
Suzahara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally posted by FishB8
The work on this lossless codec has me wondering, would it be much work to store this in an Ogg container? Xiph has lossless (FLAC) and lossey (Vorbis & Speex) audio, and lossey video (Theora & Tarkin) but they have no lossless video. If there's no patent issues with HuffYUV they might even consider sponsoring it if you could store it in an Ogg container.

Had to spend my 2¢ somewhere...
Well, I'd figure it's already storable in an Ogg Container. Divx and XVid are storable and I don't think any extra coding was put in just for those two codecs. Although I can't imagine why you'd want to do this. Huffyuv is extrememly high on size since it's around 2.0:1 on compression. This makes filesizes big really fast. So unless you've got a ton of space to use up, most people won't actually do this.
Suzahara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2003, 20:50   #82  |  Link
Belgabor
VDubMod Devel
 
Belgabor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 824
Well, what we all want to do at some point (at least I hope all want to..) is replace avi completely, so its perfectly legal to want it usable in other containers. But as you said, thats already possible
Another point you have to consider is that a) -h wanted to improve on compression and b) that YV12 in itself is already smaller than YUV2
__________________
VirtualDubMod [SourceForge : Tracker/DL] (FAQ, Some rules)
Be sure to also download the latest DLL package or get the all inclusive package!
Before you post questions, please read the VirtualDub and/or VirtualDubMod FAQ.
If you have a bug report or feature request for VirtualDubMod, be sure to read the rules first.
We give 100% of your donations to the Open Source community
Belgabor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2003, 16:05   #83  |  Link
Suzahara
Penguin Pilferer
 
Suzahara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 163
Yeah, avi is an ancient format that needs to be replaced by more flexible formats.

But I still don't believe that you would want huffyuv or huffyv12 as a long term storage thing since I don't think you can improve compression all that much (meaning it will still take up GB's very quickly) since lossless requires space and until we can find a lossless solution that can compress as much as divx or xvid, huffyuy(yv12) will still only serve as an intermediate file between (unfortunately) lossy formats.
Suzahara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2003, 05:04   #84  |  Link
FishB8
Registered User
 
FishB8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 19
Quote:
But I still don't believe that you would want huffyuv or huffyv12 as a long term storage thing
No I wouldn't. I would want to use it more for a video editing purposes. I'm a linux user and right now all the video editing solutions use a hodge podge of avi, quicktime, DV, and various types of MPEG. I would prefer a container format more native to linux, such as Ogg. I know Ogg was origionally developed to be a delivery container, but I don't imagine it would be too tough to use it for editing.

Quote:
what we all want to do at some point (at least I hope all want to..) is replace avi completely, so its perfectly legal to want it usable in other containers. But as you said, thats already possible
Exactly, but are there any tools that make this possible on linux...
__________________
Rock is dead! Long live paper and scissors.
FishB8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2003, 00:43   #85  |  Link
^^-+I4004+-^^
Banned
 
^^-+I4004+-^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Croatia [local name:Hrvatska]
Posts: 551
"2003-01-23 07:06 milan_cutka

huffYV12 encoding, graph currently disabled"

from:
http://homepages.pathfinder.gr/ffvfw/

i didn't tested or checked anything,just saw this changelog...
^^-+I4004+-^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2003, 09:04   #86  |  Link
jcsston
Matroska Dev
 
jcsston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
"2003-01-23 07:06 milan_cutka

huffYV12 encoding, graph currently disabled"

from:
http://homepages.pathfinder.gr/ffvfw/

i didn't tested or checked anything,just saw this changelog...
I tried this out, but I couldn't decode will anything. ffvfw gave me a distorted picture and YUV2 Huffyuv crashed
__________________
The Matroska Effect
jcsston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2003, 19:09   #87  |  Link
^^-+I4004+-^^
Banned
 
^^-+I4004+-^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Croatia [local name:Hrvatska]
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally posted by jcsston
I tried this out, but I couldn't decode will anything. ffvfw gave me a distorted picture and YUV2 Huffyuv crashed
he did put decoding capability few hours (i presume by the changelog)
afterwards,but anyhow,have you tried ffdshow?
(currently i don't have such recent versions of either ffvfw or ffdshow and ,frankly,i cooled down from all this huffyv12 stuff,as
anything larger than 2-3MB/s is too big for me so i'll stuck with mjpeg...)
^^-+I4004+-^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2003, 09:44   #88  |  Link
fisix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
sigh

in agony, i bump.
fisix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2003, 21:37   #89  |  Link
Marc FD
XviD fan
 
Marc FD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: France
Posts: 907
hi.

i'm currently playing with yv12 lossless compression.

about compressibility improvements with yv12.
IMHO, it's not big. because chroma planes are VERY compressible (ratios often over 4.0:1) and luma as hard to compress than in yuy2 ^^

if you have a very hard to compress frame, like one of the frame of my test clip, where luma is 1.6:2, chroma ~4:1, it gives around 2:1 in overall in yv12, but it would be better in yuy2 (~2.5:0), because the additionnal (4bpp) chroma data is more easy to compress ^^

Cheers,
MarcFD
Marc FD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2003, 21:45   #90  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,957
Marc,

what about near-lossless compression, would that be hard to accomplish? The main problem is that we don't have a YV12 codec for capturing so a possible minor loss of details wouldn't hurt. I believe there was some talk about that elsewhere in this thread. I think people use mainly MJPEG for capturing and with high enough quality settings, the result is near-lossless IMO.

What do you think? I think that -h's too busy nowadays so maybe you could come up with something for us capture freaks?
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2003, 04:50   #91  |  Link
Richard Berg
developer wannabe
 
Richard Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,211
Indeed, I recall -h saying that merely allowing for +/- 1 error would dramatically increase compressibility. Since YV12 already throws away substantial information with most capture cards vs. HuffYUV, I think such a codec would be a most useful compromise, at least until someone is able to make JPEG2000 run at 30fps
Richard Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2003, 13:08   #92  |  Link
fisix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
ho ho hold on there, quality diff with yv12?

Quote:
Indeed, I recall -h saying that merely allowing for +/- 1 error would dramatically increase compressibility. Since YV12 already throws away substantial information with most capture cards vs. HuffYUV, I think such a codec would be a most useful compromise, at least until someone is able to make JPEG2000 run at 30fps
what are we giving away by using yv12 with capture cards? is this just saying that there is a conversion from yuv2 to yv12 when using most cards because they only output yuy2?

my card is one of the many bt8x8 cards from hauppauge, and the driver gives the option of 4:2:2 packed AND YUV12 planar. if the wintv cards support it, doesn't that almost mean most cards support it?

anyway, a codec that isn't lossless isn't huffyv12. its something else.

as an aside, i saw someone write something about poor decoding ability of huffyuv, and i wondered if the decoding speed was something -h was looking into also. see this thread, post by aktan:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35387
fisix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2003, 17:17   #93  |  Link
sh0dan
Retired AviSynth Dev ;)
 
sh0dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 3,480
The decoding speed of huffyuv is quite good. The missing DirectShow interface is mainly what makes it appear to be slow.
__________________
Regards, sh0dan // VoxPod
sh0dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2003, 22:19   #94  |  Link
Marc FD
XviD fan
 
Marc FD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: France
Posts: 907
>what about near-lossless compression, would that be hard to accomplish?

mhh. not really. dunno how huffyuv works. but i think it's useless.

BTW, the true-lossless thing is what we seek, because for lossy compression, MJPEG will _always_ win.

>The main problem is that we don't have a YV12 codec for capturing

my old PCTV gives me YV12/I420, so with a yv12 lossless codec, you should be able to capture in yv12 ^^.

>so a possible minor loss of details wouldn't hurt. I believe there
>was some talk about that elsewhere in this thread. I think people use
>mainly MJPEG for capturing and with high enough quality settings, the
>result is near-lossless IMO.

yes, but it _is_ lossy. if you reencode 10x a clip with a lossless codec, you still have full quality.

>What do you think? I think that -h's too busy nowadays so maybe you >could come up with something for us capture freaks?

héhé. -h was too slow, so i did something this WE ^^.
honestly, coding a codec from scratch in a WE is really not easy ^___^

compression algo is 100% mine, and it's really not bad (that why i did a codec with). i'll release an alpha for you all to play with tomorow.

VBLE Video Codec, sound good, no ? ^^

>Indeed, I recall -h saying that merely allowing for +/- 1 error would >dramatically increase compressibility.

maybe around 5-10%, but i don't think more. my algo achieve much more, and it's truly lossless.
Marc FD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2003, 22:49   #95  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally posted by Marc FD

if you reencode 10x a clip with a lossless codec, you still have full quality.

compression algo is 100% mine, and it's really not bad (that why i did a codec with). i'll release an alpha for you all to play with tomorow.
I meant near-lossless codec for capturing. As an intermediate codec a true lossless one should definitely be used, I agree.

I can hardly wait, lots to capture
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2003, 22:50   #96  |  Link
vidiot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 144
Neuron did say that it won´t take long til we see you back MarcFD!

And I´m glad he is right!

Knowing all your filters I guess we´ll see a pretty fast "alpha" these days.

Curiously
Harald
vidiot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2003, 20:29   #97  |  Link
digitize
Registered User
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 142
Ah cool, i cannot wait to see marc fd's codec, he usually codes good stuff and Im sure this will be the same
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2003, 21:58   #98  |  Link
McQuaid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 93
In regards to capping, I checked and I don't have yv12 for my capture card but I do have yuv12 are they the same? Also the other post about near lossless wouldn't be useless for capturing to save space, would be handy feature. It would be nice to have something similar to mjpeg compression sizes while staying in the same colour space throughout.
McQuaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2003, 01:19   #99  |  Link
Blight
Software Developer
 
Blight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Israel
Posts: 1,000
Regarding decoding, FFDShow decodes huffyuv and is faster than using the huffyuv codec as it is directshow based.
__________________
Yaron Gur
Zoom Player . Lead Developer
Blight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2003, 19:37   #100  |  Link
Marc FD
XviD fan
 
Marc FD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: France
Posts: 907
>>Neuron did say that it won´t take long til we see you back MarcFD!

wow, wow, not so fast.
i never coded a codec, so i thought it would be fun.

but i'll get a dsl connection very soon, and i don't think i'll have 5 minutes free for devel then ^^.

here's a beta of VBLE. compression is close to huffyuv, with 25% more thanks to yv12 colorspace.

encoding part is pure SIMD (isse processor required, no check)
decoding is pure C, and hard to optimise.

it's way slower than huffyuv, but it should be fast enough for capture on modern cpus ^^.

(attached "VBLE Video Codec (beta version).zip")

Install instruction : dezip & install using the .inf file ^_^

enjoy,
MarcFD

>In regards to capping, I checked and I don't have yv12 for my capture
>card but I do have yuv12 are they the same? Also the other post about
>near lossless wouldn't be useless for capturing to save space, would
>be handy feature. It would be nice to have something similar to mjpeg
>compression sizes while staying in the same colour space throughout.

well, a hyper-fast yv12 native wavelet codec would be cool, sure, but my math skill is way too limited for that (remember i'm 17 years old)
Marc FD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.