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. |
31st October 2008, 16:21 | #41 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
I'm pretty sure we'll see new video compression algorithms, either further optimiztions of existing approaches or completely new approaches or a combination of both. But still the question: How long will it take until we see something that is really far superior to H.264? And now that H.264 has just been widely adopted in the industry and by customers (including "mobile" and Internet), it may take a long time to establish a completely new format. The SD to Full HD step was a huge one and it made H.264 necessary, because MPEG-2 wasn't really handy for Full HD footage. But are we going to see another big step, that makes the "next generation" video compression necessary, anytime soon? I'm not so sure about that, but we'll see, of course...
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 31st October 2008 at 16:26. |
31st October 2008, 19:28 | #42 | Link |
Bored...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Unknown
Posts: 2,812
|
My prediction for the next 5 years... I'm with LoRd_MuldeR for the thing with video compression -> Progress in video compression algorithms will be kinda slow, and x264 (or at least some other h.264 based encoder) will still be the winner of Doom9's codec comparisons... But regarding "higher resolutions than Full HD" -> UHDTV is already just "around the corner" in Japan! Probably there will be some test broadcasts in 5 years, and UHD capable (tho very very expensive) displays... Another 5 years and a lot of us will say "my new UHD movies look sooo much better than the old HD ones". HD might be "wowing" today, but remember, there was also a time where VHS or 16bit VGA res. was impressive! ;]
Last edited by Soulhunter; 31st October 2008 at 22:14. |
31st October 2008, 21:22 | #44 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
My thoughts are that MPEG-4 will be around for a very long time. UHD will take awhile to get any sort of traction (I'm thinking 10-15 years). HDTV has been around in one form or another since the '80s, and is just within the last 3-4 years seeing widespread adoption. Heck, the Russians had a 1125 line analog system as early as 1958 for military applications!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv Anyway, compression technology is constantly improving (look at x264 over the last year!!), though I have a hard time imagining what the next "big thing" will be. Available bandwidth and storage capacity continue to increase at astonishing rates (well... storage at least), which lessens the need for super awesome compression. I imagine by the time we need to transmit / store UHD on any sort of scale, something new will be developed to fit these needs. I wonder if something intermediate, a-la 4K (RED camera, anyone?) will fill the void. I'd like to see a trend towards quality - i.e. higher bit depth / wider color gamut. This mostly means better displays. Unfortunately, most people either don't care, or can't tell a difference (realistically the same thing). Who knows... I'm pretty damned happy with BluRay for now... especially my half-size backup MKVs! ~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) Last edited by Blue_MiSfit; 31st October 2008 at 21:32. |
31st October 2008, 23:05 | #45 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
I agree with Blue_MiSfit here: I'd like to see the trend towards higher bit depths in displays and for the actual content. Maybe soon we'll move towards YV12 with full chroma resolution? I remember reading an article once that said compressing an image at 4:2:0 sampling vs 4:4:4 sampling didn't make a huge difference in final file size, but the 4:4:4 file could give higher potential quality because of the larger resolution to start with, as well as some better prediction available from having all samples.
But, that was an article I read from God knows where. Is it true? I personally have no idea, but I'd be interested in seeing if it does in any lossy compression scheme.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
31st October 2008, 23:54 | #46 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
YV12 can never have full chroma resolution It's 4:2:0. 10 bit would be a much better improvement IMO - that way we wouldn't have to hide banding with dither/noise.
~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
31st October 2008, 23:59 | #47 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Okay, this may sound stupid, but what exactly do the numbers in x:y:z stand for and how does YV12/YUY2 fit in?
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 1st November 2008 at 00:07. |
1st November 2008, 00:18 | #48 | Link | |
4:2:0 hater
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
Hope that helps |
|
1st November 2008, 02:50 | #49 | Link | |||
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,392
|
Quote:
Quote:
I know of exactly one attempt to capture some of the motion redundancy without actual motion vectors. This algorithm is much better than orthogonal 3D wavelet, and still much worse than mpeg1. As a bonus it's hella slow. Motion compensated 3D wavelet works (approximately equivalent to normal hierarchical B-frames), but then you're hardly revolutionizing motion prediction. Quote:
Last edited by akupenguin; 1st November 2008 at 07:44. |
|||
1st November 2008, 04:22 | #50 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 392
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not in 5, but maybe in 10 years we can start to paint our walls with hi-resolution OLEDs or E-INK instead of having small 50" LCD tvs like now. |
||
1st November 2008, 04:33 | #51 | Link | |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Quote:
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
|
1st November 2008, 04:53 | #52 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 392
|
I noted that animes are changing since 2000 for ever smaller characters in the screen, as you can see things more clearly in bigger HDTV screens. Maybe movies will adapt to use most of those monstrous resolutions and sizes. 1080p is far from being more resolution than our eyes can distinguish.
|
1st November 2008, 05:11 | #53 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 18
|
Akupenguin
Thanks for the through answer. I admire your knowledge regarding temporal redundancy research. I know there are several attempts to use 3D wavelet for exploiting temporal redundancy and I know they haven’t produce better results nor they are practical. However, I am anticipating one day “in the future” we will see a video compression algorithm that doesn’t use trial and error or macro-blocks coding. Instead it will analyze, process and encode the whole GOP as one data chunk. Even if there is such algorithm today, it would not be practical, at least at the decoder side. However as more cores will be added to the CPU, such algorithms will be more feasible. Until then h.264 and its extensions will still be the video compression champion. Now regarding h264 intra compression as the best lossy still-image format. I am not aware of that and have not compared it to JPEG2000 myself. Have you run such a test? I would be interested too see these results. My expectation for such a test is that they would give comparable quality for low to medium compression. But at high compression ratio (80 and above), I doubt h264 Intra will be able to keep up. |
1st November 2008, 05:42 | #54 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
Its also not surprising since spatial intra prediction is impossible in an overlapped-block format. |
|
1st November 2008, 05:58 | #55 | Link | |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
Quote:
Full 4:4:4 would be handy though @Zeeman: We could make x264 encode on a per-GOP basis, with it outputting ridiculously large amalgam of all the frames from the start to end of the GOP, which would constitute one huge data block
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. Last edited by Sagekilla; 1st November 2008 at 06:02. |
|
1st November 2008, 07:25 | #56 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,392
|
Quote:
IOW, yes h264 fails at sufficiently low bpp, but low bpp is always avoidable. Last edited by akupenguin; 1st November 2008 at 07:29. |
|
1st November 2008, 07:46 | #57 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
The primary benefit of wavelets is more efficient coding of large-scale detail. But, in most cases, almost all your bits are spent on small-scale, not large-scale, detail. But what if you're encoding at a bitrate low enough that you don't store small-scale detail? ... then you might as well downscale anyways, and you lose the wavelet advantage again. |
|
1st November 2008, 07:56 | #58 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
What about a hybrid mode? Wavelets for large-scale detail, and blocks for low-scale detail?
Or have I had too much damned kool-aid? ~Misfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
1st November 2008, 07:58 | #59 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,348
|
Imo it should be noted that bpp sensitivity is directly related to transform size, big transform = more possible data removal, small transform = limited data removal, and large transforms don't work well for a variety of reasons, this includes wavelets, curvelets, magiclets or any other buzzwordlet transform. Or, put another way, extremely low bpp (extremely low being defined as a case where the compression standard being used does not in anyway utilize a large percentage of the available resolution) is retarded, you should always use a realistic resolution for your bitrate budget, a qcif blurry mess is just as good as a wuxga blury mess, assuming very low and equivelent datarates (better if you account for superior performance of standalone interpolation to wavelet subband interpolation.
@ds 1 what is so horrible about jpeg2k 2 give me an example of a significantly better wavelet image coder from the same time frame. I'm not saying j2k isn't pretty useless, but I happen to think this is largely because wavelets are over rated. . . . . (hooray parenthesis) |
1st November 2008, 08:04 | #60 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
You'd have to talk to someone who's more familiar with the specifics to know exactly why. |
|
|
|