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 > Video Encoding > New and alternative video codecs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 4th November 2019, 22:23   #1961  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
And explaining by any means would be nice IF you actually bothered to follow up with a sistematic approach to prove your hypothesis...Then look at LAVFilters
Etc. etc. etc.
I really like your analytical thought, but we need 2 lifes to check all these.
And if all this procedure was so clear for you, why didn't you do it?
We have to suggest things that are feasible in real world, not just crazy detailed procedures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
The only thing my Dua Lipa results confirm is that most routines that would be weighting down decode performance for this particular encode had already been optimized in AVX2 by the time 0.2.1 was released. AVX2 optimization, I would like to remind you, was considered almost complete by the time 0.2.0 was released: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/d...60f09/NEWS#L96
Hell, if I have time I might even build every single tag leading to 0.2.1 to pintpoint the exact release that brought us to today's performance.
Unfortunately there are two issues here.
Firstly, I have already said that for 7 months not a lot things have been added to AVX2 optimizations according to my tests although if we followed every release notes after 0.2.1 up to 0.5.1 we should see a lot more AVX2 gain than 5%.
The second more important issue is that according to my tests using LAV filters with Core2Duo in multi-thread mode, there is no difference using SSSE3 optimizations between 0.2.1 and 0.5.1 which is really bad according to release notes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
Congrats, this might be your first correct conjecture in this whole hordeal.
Based on the line of code highlighted by sneaker_ger I'd say having the number of tile threads implicitly set to 2 makes dav1d bail on this line: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/d.../src/lib.c#L84...This is indeed a bug. The easiest fix would be to cast threads to float before doing the division, as shown here: https://godbolt.org/z/wBLYoo, to avoid having dav1d bail. Threads distribution will still be higher than selected, but at least it'll work.
I'm here to point to bugs, to discover bugs or even make developers think that something is going wrong that could be a bug, so I'm happy that I discovered one.
But certainly I'm not here to fix it, as I'm not a developer.
Still, the way I understand the bug and the fix presented by you, I'm not sure if it's going to recover the multi-thread "loss" or whatever other reason exists that 0.2.1 is so close to 0.5.1 using LAV for both AVX2 and SSSE3 according to my tests.
So, are we still looking for answers or case closed after fixing the bug ?
__________________
Win 10 x64 (18363.476) - Core i3-9100F - nVidia 1660 (436.15)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2019, 22:43   #1962  |  Link
SmilingWolf
I am maddo saientisto!
 
SmilingWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 92
Well that procedure is the only certain way to find the source of the slowdown. It should't take more than one afternoon to run those tests, especially with some scripting and logging thrown in the mix.

And the reason I didn't follow my own procedure is that I can't reproduce your results, and have nothing to diagnose. I'm seeing between 4% (Dua Lipa) and 18% (Chimera) improvements in AVX2, and above 30% in SSSE3.
That's far above anything you're seeing on your computers, and more or less in line with what was announced:
- 0.3.0: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/201...even-faster%21 - "a gain of 15%-25% on SSSE3 processors; and even a 5% gain on AVX-2 processors"
- 0.5.0: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/201...elease-fastest - "a gain of 22%-40% on SSSE3 processors; and another gain of 4-7% on AVX-2 processors"
- 0.5.1: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2019/dav1d-0.5.1 - posted for completeness sake only, there's no mention of SSSE3 or AVX2 speedups

Is there a specific figure you were expecting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Still, the way I understand the bug and the fix presented by you, I'm not sure if it's going to recover the multi-thread "loss" or whatever other reason exists that 0.2.1 is so close to 0.5.1 using LAV for both AVX2 and SSSE3 according to my tests.
So, are we still looking for answers or case closed after fixing the bug ?
That's correct, no case closed yet.

From where I'm standing, the problem is that you are the only one with access to those troublesome systems.
If you want me to help by compiling different versions dav1d or ffmpeg for Windows, I'm game, but that's as far as I can go from here.

Last edited by SmilingWolf; 4th November 2019 at 23:12.
SmilingWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2019, 22:46   #1963  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 9,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
Based on the line of code highlighted by sneaker_ger I'd say having the number of tile threads implicitly set to 2 makes dav1d bail on this line: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/d.../src/lib.c#L84
The problem, however, is not in LAVFilters, but in FFmpeg's formula for frame distribution between the two modes, starting here: https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blo...ibdav1d.c#L137
LAV Filters was actually meant to avoid the calculation logic in FFmpeg entirely, but since I last looked at it, it was changed again (previously it directly took framethreads = threads). So I've adjusted how LAV configures ffmpeg-dav1d, and it should never use their calculations - and it'll now also disable all threading if you set it to 1.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 09:17   #1964  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
And the reason I didn't follow my own procedure is that I can't reproduce your results, and have nothing to diagnose. I'm seeing between 4% (Dua Lipa) and 18% (Chimera) improvements in AVX2, and above 30% in SSSE3.
Using what tools to achieve those figures and in what mode, single-thread or multi-thread ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
That's far above anything you're seeing on your computers, and more or less in line with what was announced:
- 0.3.0: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/201...even-faster%21 - "a gain of 15%-25% on SSSE3 processors; and even a 5% gain on AVX-2 processors"
- 0.5.0: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/201...elease-fastest - "a gain of 22%-40% on SSSE3 processors; and another gain of 4-7% on AVX-2 processors"
- 0.5.1: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2019/dav1d-0.5.1 - posted for completeness sake only, there's no mention of SSSE3 or AVX2 speedups

Is there a specific figure you were expecting?
You got it all wrong here.
To be more scientifically accurate, allow me to correct you according to the publicly available release notes:

- 0.2.2 :
SSSE3 +10% of 0.2.1
AVX2 +5% of 0.2.1

- 0.3.0 :
SSSE3 +12% of 0.2.2
AVX2 +5% of 0.2.2

- 0.5.0 :
SSSE +40% of 0.3.0
AVX2 +(4-7%), for my calculations I take 5% on average of 0.3.0

So, if you do the math correctly we are expecting a gain between 0.2.1 and 0.5.1 versions as follows:

SSSE3 ~72%
AVX2 ~16%

Even your troublesome calculations, as you mixed single-thread mode with multi-thread mode and dAV1d executables with lower than expected number of threads and LAV filters without managing to run DXVA Checker properly, couldn't reach those figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
From where I'm standing, the problem is that you are the only one with access to those troublesome systems.
From where I'm standing I'm the only one with four and not two video samples measured (for both 1080p and 4K), with proper measurements using LAV filters in multi-thread mode and correct DXVA Checker results.
TBH, I'm the only one who even noticed the issue of false reporting the gains between versions, at least using LAV filters in multi-thread mode and as I proved just above, you also confirmed my claims even using dAV1d executables and without wanting to.

I'm not sure what is your connection with dAV1d team, but you are certainly not offering a good job as their unofficial "lawyer"

I'm still waiting for an answer from you or any other member of dAV1d team regarding that 16% gain of AVX2 and 72% gain of SSSE3 between 0.2.1 and 0.5.1 reported in the release notes, is it for single-thread or multi-thread mode ?
__________________
Win 10 x64 (18363.476) - Core i3-9100F - nVidia 1660 (436.15)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 09:40   #1965  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 9,821
Comparisons between LAV 0.74.1 and later nightly versions are flawed since the threading strategy changed in FFmpeg, which resulted in 0.74.1 using more frame threads then the later nightlies, making 0.74.1 artificially faster. As such, all your results are invalidated.
This is why you should use as little software as possible to do benchmarking (ie. go as close to the core as possible), as you never know what changes might interfer with your conclusions.

I've also once again changed the thread distribution in 0.74.1-30 from last night, and while its going to use more threads again now, similar to the old logic, its not going to be identical to 0.74.1 in all cases (because I added more tile threads on high core-count CPUs)
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders

Last edited by nevcairiel; 5th November 2019 at 09:48.
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 14:19   #1966  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
Comparisons between LAV 0.74.1 and later nightly versions are flawed since the threading strategy changed in FFmpeg, which resulted in 0.74.1 using more frame threads then the later nightlies, making 0.74.1 artificially faster. As such, all your results are invalidated.
This is why you should use as little software as possible to do benchmarking (ie. go as close to the core as possible), as you never know what changes might interfer with your conclusions.
So...It seems that the inconsistency of LAV filters between the threading management of 0.74.1 (0.2.1 dAV1d) and 0.74.1-29 (0.5.1 dAV1d) caused a lot of troubles for benchmarking.

Also, your decision to reject single-thread decoding for 0.74.1 and 0.74.1-29, didn't allow me and still doesn't allow me to test this kind of performance gain (single-thread)

But, as I said before, the end user using a Media Player couldn't care less for single-thread performance/gain.

It's the real-world multi-thread decoding that does matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
I've also once again changed the thread distribution in 0.74.1-30 from last night, and while its going to use more threads again now, similar to the old logic, its not going to be identical to 0.74.1 in all cases (because I added more tile threads on high core-count CPUs)
OK, let's move on to new benchmarks using multi-thread performance of 0.74.1-30.

1080p

Chimera ~6.6Mbps

Core i5 6500 95/144/285 CPU 92% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-30)
Core i5 6500 86/134/290 CPU 87% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-29)
Core i5 6500 77/127/273 CPU 91% -0.2.1 (LAV 0.74.1)


Core2Duo T7600 12/22/103 CPU 87% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-30)
Core2Duo T7600 10/19/94 CPU 72% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-29)
Core2Duo T7600 8/17/100 CPU 87% -0.2.1 (LAV 0.74.1)



Dua Lipa ~2.2Mbps

Core i5 6500 135/194/255 CPU 91% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-30)
Core i5 6500 120/186/251 CPU 87% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-29)
Core i5 6500 112/186/255 CPU 91% -0.2.1 (LAV 0.74.1)


Core2Duo T7600 11/22/62 CPU 84% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-30)
Core2Duo T7600 7/18/70 CPU 65% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-29)
Core2Duo T7600 7/18/69 CPU 84% -0.2.1 (LAV 0.74.1)



4K

Holi Festival ~14Mbps

Core i5 6500 34/43/62 CPU 94% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-30)
Core i5 6500 34/43/61 CPU 94% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-29)
Core i5 6500 30/40/60 CPU 95% -0.2.1 (LAV 0.74.1)


Summer Nature ~23Mbps

Core i5 6500 31/42/55 CPU 92% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-30)
Core i5 6500 32/43/57 CPU 93% -0.5.1 (LAV 0.74.1-29)
Core i5 6500 26/37/50 CPU 91% -0.2.1 (LAV 0.74.1)


Comments:

1) Unfortunately not a lot changed regarding AVX2 optimizations in general.

For 4K clips the decoding performance didn't change at all and there is also a slight regression for Summer Nature

But for 1080p we have a gain of 13% for Chimera and 4% for Dua Lipa comparing 0.2.1 vs 0.5.1, still far away from 16% of expected gain according to release notes.

2) I'm now 100% sure that dAV1d team should be a lot more cautious regarding publicly reported gains of their versions in release notes.

IMO, they should always include real-world multi-thread gains on multiple content and resolutions (at least 1080p and 4K)

3) SSSE3 optimizations give 22% and 29% gain for 0.5.1 vs 0.2.1 on Core2Duo CPU, which of course is far away than optimal 72% but a lot better than previous badly configured LAV filters 0.74.1-29.

4) LAV filters 0.74.1-30 and 0.74.1 have the same CPU utilization, so the bug of LAV 0.74.1-29 has been fixed and we can finally compare apples to apples.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (18363.476) - Core i3-9100F - nVidia 1660 (436.15)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all

Last edited by NikosD; 5th November 2019 at 20:44.
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 15:48   #1967  |  Link
clsid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,011
You can find the exact benchmark results from Ewout in the individual MRs. There is a link to a spreadsheet with all test results and system spec. Example:
https://code.videolan.org/videolan/d...e_requests/792
clsid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 18:34   #1968  |  Link
SmilingWolf
I am maddo saientisto!
 
SmilingWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Using what tools to achieve those figures and in what mode, single-thread or multi-thread ?
You got it all wrong here.
To be more scientifically accurate, allow me to correct you according to the publicly available release notes:

- 0.2.2 :
SSSE3 +10% of 0.2.1
AVX2 +5% of 0.2.1

- 0.3.0 :
SSSE3 +12% of 0.2.2
AVX2 +5% of 0.2.2

- 0.5.0 :
SSSE +40% of 0.3.0
AVX2 +(4-7%), for my calculations I take 5% on average of 0.3.0

So, if you do the math correctly we are expecting a gain between 0.2.1 and 0.5.1 versions as follows:

SSSE3 ~72%
AVX2 ~16%
No, once again it's you who got it all wrong: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/d.../0.2.2...0.3.0
A grand total of 4 commits between 0.2.2 and 0.3.0, with a stability fix, some docs updates, and no performance related commits whatsoever.

And if you had bothered to read the resources I linked to, you would have seen the numbers refer to 0.3.0 vs 0.2.1, as shown by the image on JBKempf's blog:


So if YOU do the math correctly, you get:
- 0.3.0: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/201...even-faster%21 - "a gain of 15%-25% on SSSE3 processors; and even a 5% gain on AVX-2 processors"
- 0.5.0: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/201...elease-fastest - "a gain of 22%-40% on SSSE3 processors; and another gain of 4-7% on AVX-2 processors"
So, for SSSE3, max: 75%, min: 40% if you consider the numbers in the TLDR, or 37% if you consider the lowest range given within the 0.3.0 blogpost.
And for AVX2: max: 12,4%, min: 109,2%

I have already shown that, with SSSE3, I can get a 29% improvement in "FFmpeg multithread" mode on Dua Lipa, and 38,8% if playing some more extensively with the thread settings.
29% figure: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...74#post1889274, 0.2.1 SSSE3 = 46,972s, 0.5.1 SSSE3 = 33,041s
38,8% figure: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...89#post1889289, 0.5.1 SSSE3 with "nonstandard" thread settings: 28,737s
Admittedly close to the low end of the promised speedups, but definitely within the given range.

The 4% and 18% figures come from this post: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...42#post1889442
Your beloved DXVA checker, LAVFilters 0.74.1 vs 0.74.1-29, AVX2, default multithreading, basically same conditions as you:
Chimera average FPS: 139,201 -> 170,234 = 18,2% slowdown when going from the most recent to the older, or 22% speedup when doing the opposite
Dua Lipa average FPS: 248,936 -> 260,815 = 4.6% slowdown when going from the most recent to the older, or 4.8% speedup when doing the opposite

Moreover, you keep yelling at a whole bunch of clouds: it has been shown that a bunch of different projects have undergone a bunch of changes that make both your and my DXVA Checker measurements completely unreliable to find out about dav1d improvements or lack thereof, yet you insist.

Meanwhile, all explanations (but your own), offers of help and alternative, more reliable solutions have been met with utter hostility. At this point, all resources are exhausted. You're right. dav1d is crap, the developers are incompetent, and you can live in your happy world where you can be mad at something.

OR you could start doing as suggested, and MAYBE we'll find out exactly where the problem lies, and possibly fix it.

Last edited by SmilingWolf; 5th November 2019 at 19:03.
SmilingWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2019, 11:15   #1969  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
No, once again it's you who got it all wrong: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/d.../0.2.2...0.3.0
A grand total of 4 commits between 0.2.2 and 0.3.0, with a stability fix, some docs updates, and no performance related commits whatsoever.

And if you had bothered to read the resources I linked to, you would have seen the numbers refer to 0.3.0 vs 0.2.1, as shown by the image on JBKempf's blog
I really like names like Jean-Baptiste or Jesus from Nazareth, but I like more to read the official release notes than specific blogs: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/dav1d/-/releases

So, what do we have here ?
Quote:
0.2.2 brings large improvements in speed on ARM64 and SSSE3 (more than 10% speed increase) and even manages to gain around 5% on the already fast AVX-2 implementation.
10% for SSSE3 and 5% for AVX2 using 0.2.2 compared to previous version aka 0.2.1
Quote:
0.3.0 brings large improvements in speed on ARM64 (15% speedup) and SSSE3 (more than 12% fps increase) and even manages to gain around 5% on the already fast AVX-2 implementation.
Another 12% for SSSE3 and 5% for AVX2 using 0.3.0 compared to previous version aka 0.2.2
Quote:
0.5.0 brings large improvements in speed on SSSE3 CPU (up to 40% speedup), new speed improvements on AVX-2 (for 4-7%) and ARM64 (up to 10%) and ARM32. It introduces some VSX, SSE2 and SSE4 optimizations.
Another 40% for SSSE3 and 4-7% for AVX2 using 0.5.0 compared to previous version aka 0.3.0.

Once again, please do the math.

It's ~72% from 0.2.1 to 0.5.1 regarding SSSE3 optimizations and ~16% for AVX2, according to the official, publicly released notes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
I have already shown that, with SSSE3, I can get a 29% improvement in "FFmpeg multithread" mode on Dua Lipa, and 38,8% if playing some more extensively with the thread settings.

Admittedly close to the low end of the promised speedups, but definitely within the given range.
I have updated my previous post regarding benchmarks and I get 22% and 29% for Chimera and Dua Lipa using my Core2Duo, still too far away from 72%

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingWolf View Post
Moreover, you keep yelling at a whole bunch of clouds: it has been shown that a bunch of different projects have undergone a bunch of changes that make both your and my DXVA Checker measurements completely unreliable to find out about dav1d improvements or lack thereof, yet you insist.

Meanwhile, all explanations (but your own), offers of help and alternative, more reliable solutions have been met with utter hostility. At this point, all resources are exhausted. You're right. dav1d is crap, the developers are incompetent, and you can live in your happy world where you can be mad at something.
SmilingWolf with a Big Mouth, I could easily add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsid View Post
You can find the exact benchmark results from Ewout in the individual MRs. There is a link to a spreadsheet with all test results and system spec. Example:
https://code.videolan.org/videolan/d...e_requests/792
Interesting specs...2 x Xeon with AVX2, DDR4 etc= 2x14cores = 28 cores with hyperthreading for testing SSSE3.

He has an average gain of ~23% which is in the range of my 22% to 29% gain, but I don't understand how the build versions used by him are connected to final versions (0.2.1, 0.2.2 etc)

But his results made me struggle to understand what is really going on with SSSE3 and propose something different.

My first Haswell processor was a Pentium with artificially disabled AVX/AVX2 instructions.

So, I remembered late yesterday night and confirmed with my 2013 (!) benchmark results that my 128bit SIMD (SSEx) benchmarks running on Pentium Haswell, were a lot faster at the same clock than my desktop Core2Duo E7300, unusually faster and not justified by the architecture differences.
It was like running 128bit instructions on 256bit registers and I say that because of the huge difference.

My suggestion:
@Beelzebubu, dAV1d team, x265/x264 fans, @doom9 and every other people running benchmarks on different SIMD optimizations.

If you want to benchmark specific 128bit SIMD optimizations and your target group is not only Pentiums/ Celerons with disabled AVX/AVX2 sets, but legacy hardware with SSEx only SIMD, then I suggest to run the tests on REAL SSEx-only (128bit only) capable hardware (e.g Core2Duo, Core2Quad or Core iX first generation) and not an emulation like running 128bit SSEx code with artificially disabled 256bit SIMD optimizations, but on a lot faster DDR4 and 256bit register capable CPU like 2 x Xeon (!)

I think you are going to be surprised by the results and these results could explain some performance difference.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (18363.476) - Core i3-9100F - nVidia 1660 (436.15)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2019, 15:30   #1970  |  Link
Beelzebubu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY (USA)
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
My suggestion:
@Beelzebubu, dAV1d team [..]

If you want to benchmark specific 128bit SIMD optimizations and your target group is not only Pentiums/ Celerons with disabled AVX/AVX2 sets, but legacy hardware with SSEx only SIMD, then I suggest to run the tests on REAL SSEx-only (128bit only) capable hardware (e.g Core2Duo, Core2Quad or Core iX first generation) and not an emulation like running 128bit SSEx code with artificially disabled 256bit SIMD optimizations, but on a lot faster DDR4 and 256bit register capable CPU like 2 x Xeon (!)
That's a fair request, we can look into doing that.
Beelzebubu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2019, 23:56   #1971  |  Link
Mr_Khyron
Member
 
Mr_Khyron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 114
AOMedia Research Symposium 2019 Videos
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...wewtWKpxXky8iI
Mr_Khyron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2019, 13:14   #1972  |  Link
marcomsousa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Khyron View Post
AOMedia Research Symposium 2019 Videos
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...wewtWKpxXky8iI
Adding some titles

Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpEcNB6ltw
Facebook - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgztbt6HLs4
Netflix - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1vwnI0vbMI
Dav1d and Eve-AV1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy_89NcVpk4
SVT-AV1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXvoBVZmkHs
AV1 in RT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf90zOw6rcE
AV1 in RT in WebRTC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McmR8MhjbQk
Deep Neural Network Based Frame Reconstruction For AV2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIoJfY9IIH0
Deep Learning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJd9qF4OceI
Lesson learnt from WebP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zogxpP2lm-o
V1: Nits, Nitpicks and Shortcomings [Things we should fix for AV2] Mozilla - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paf8JcO682Y
__________________
AV1 win64 VS2017 builds
Last build here | History
I also open source the build scripts at Github: here

Last edited by marcomsousa; 8th November 2019 at 13:16.
marcomsousa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2019, 14:49   #1973  |  Link
utack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcomsousa View Post
Lesson learnt from WebP
There are only two I can think of
  • despite being technically more advanced you can still lose to a decades old legacy format when your encoder is terrible
  • it does not matter that your format is worse than the legacy competition, if you claim that it is better often enough others will start parroting it and adopt it

Seriously the only area where it might be a tiny bit better is for ultra-high compression where it does not start falling apart as badly as jpeg, for any sane (mid ot high) image quality range the vast array of jpeg encoders are doing a significantly better job of retaining detail
utack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2019, 20:04   #1974  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 190
Webp had some other benefits over JPEG outside of compressing photographic images.


JPEG XL seems like WebP's successor in this regard. It's targeted at lots of pain points that would make it a good choice to replace JPEG (and PNG and GiF) on the web and in the browser even if it didn't beat JPEG on compression, though it claims that as well. And maybe the JPEG name will help, though that doesn't seem to have benefitted anyone but the original JPEG.

Not sure there's room for AVIF and JPEG XL but maybe they have subtly different niches.
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2019, 20:09   #1975  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 190
Ronald's slide showing 4 AV1 encoders all scaling well seems like an improvement from his slide at BIG Apple Video where only SVT seemed to be managing that, with Eve just behind and Rav1e and libaom trailing.

Not sure it it's a direct comparison to the earlier slide but if it is then things should be a lot better for AV1 when cores are available.
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2019, 01:38   #1976  |  Link
soresu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dapperdan View Post
Ronald's slide showing 4 AV1 encoders all scaling well seems like an improvement from his slide at BIG Apple Video where only SVT seemed to be managing that, with Eve just behind and Rav1e and libaom trailing.

Not sure it it's a direct comparison to the earlier slide but if it is then things should be a lot better for AV1 when cores are available.
An interesting point Ronald made implies that AV1 has an intrinsic parallel scaling limitation due to an oversight during the encoder development (12:20 in the video), something to do with superblock boundaries.

Hopefully a lesson learned for AV2 efforts going forward.
soresu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2019, 15:49   #1977  |  Link
marcomsousa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 60
Rav1e release 0.1.0
First official release, published during the Video Dev Days 2019 in Tokyo.

Features
  • Intra and inter frames
  • 64x64 superblocks
  • 4x4 to 64x64 RDO-selected square and 2:1/1:2 rectangular blocks
  • DC, H, V, Paeth, smooth, and a subset of directional prediction modes
  • DCT, (FLIP-)ADST and identity transforms (up to 64x64, 16x16 and 32x32 respectively)
  • 8-, 10- and 12-bit depth color
  • 4:2:0 (full support), 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 (limited) chroma sampling
  • 11 speed settings (0-10)
  • Near real-time encoding at high speed levels
  • Rate control (single-pass and two-pass)
  • Temporal RDO
  • Scene cut detection
  • CLI tool and C API

https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/releases/tag/0.1.0
__________________
AV1 win64 VS2017 builds
Last build here | History
I also open source the build scripts at Github: here

Last edited by marcomsousa; 9th November 2019 at 16:17.
marcomsousa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2019, 16:41   #1978  |  Link
mzso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 841
Hi!
Are there any AV1 videos on youtube besides the beta playlist? So far I haven't found any.
mzso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2019, 16:49   #1979  |  Link
marcomsousa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzso View Post
Hi!
Are there any AV1 videos on youtube besides the beta playlist? So far I haven't found any.
Almost all top videos, but only in low resolutions.
__________________
AV1 win64 VS2017 builds
Last build here | History
I also open source the build scripts at Github: here
marcomsousa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2019, 19:20   #1980  |  Link
mzso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcomsousa View Post
Almost all top videos, but only in low resolutions.
Thanks. Well, I guess I won't be coming across many then. I don't watch stuff like that, and it looks like a few million views are far from enough. A 4+ billion Ed Sheeran song had it up to to 2160p, but a 2+ billion Taylor swift song only has it up to 720p. I managed to find some Wired videos with a couple million views, that have AV1 though.

It seems like Firefox's (well, Waterfox's to be accurate) AV1 decoding is quite poor. MPV's (after upgrading) and LAV's seem to be a lot better, no hangs or stutter.
mzso 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 04:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.