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 18th October 2009, 04:07   #1  |  Link
Neiromaster
Neiromaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 68
SIF1 v1.20 was released

Next version of SIF1 has been released.

To download SIF1 it is possible from here.

The text of SIF-compression patent can be found here.

The text of SIF1 video compression format specification can be found here.

The Easy-to-understand description of features of SIF-compression technology can be found here.

Demonstration video fragments can be downloaded from there.

Description of SIF1 settings can be found here.

Latest source code of SIF1 decompressor can be downloaded from here.

Further plans

1) SIF transform core code restructurization and multithreaded optimization.

2) Adding a new higher-quality SIF transform modes through the use of PsyRD optimization.

3) Adding support for quarter-pixel motion compensation.

4) Writing a portable SIF1 encoding-decoding library for Linux.

5) Performing SSE2 and multiprocessor optimization of the current code.

6) Further development of new algorithms based on SIF-technology.


History of versions

1.20

1) Motion detection engine was restructured and optimized for multithreaded operation (up to 32 threads). In current code multithreaded optimization is done using a temporal scheme since the core of SIF transform is the last big unit of code that is not working in multithreaded mode.

2) Added multithreaded modes of an entropy codec operation (up to 8 threads). Thus, the decoder now have full multithreading support and supports decoding of streams with 80+ mbits bitrate.

3) Codec now supports vertical resolution that is not a multiple of 16.

4) Implemented different (in terms of speed & quality) motion detection engine presets.

5) Added checking for correct input. Now the decoder doesn't crash on corrupt or invalid files.

6) Added turbo first pass mode - about two times faster than second in two-pass mode.

7) New PsyRD extrapolation engine, used in the motion detection engine, is written. Due to this, another significant improvement in sharpness and detail of compressed image was achieved.


1.10

1) The source code of the motion compensation engine was restructured.

2) All main DSP engines of the decoder has been optimized for multithreading execution. Up to 32 parallel threads are supported.

3) Internal parametres of SIF compression core has been optimized and simultaneously the psychovisual model is once again improved. Clearness and image detailing have very considerably increased as a result.

4) The error in a compression core has been corrected. This error has been to reveal itself in the codec if the vertical image size is not multiple of 32.

5) The error in a codec has been corrected. Because of this error the codec had fall on the old computers which did not supports of SSE instructions. Thanks for testing to Alexander Budchanin.


1.00

1) All basic blocs of codec has been practically fully rewritten. Functionality of compression core has been considerably improved.

2) Quality of compression has been enormous increased.

3) Support of full set of compression mode has been added.

4) Psychovisual model has been debugged and improved.

5) Codec format has been fixed and will publish like the open specification.

6) Unfortunately this version is not compatible with all previous versions, but its the last considerable changing of format.

Last edited by Neiromaster; 8th July 2011 at 12:35.
Neiromaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 20:53   #2  |  Link
Neiromaster
Neiromaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 68
Interestingly, it seems local inhabitants have lost speech power.
Or the new codec is so bad?
Neiromaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2009, 23:37   #3  |  Link
Shinobu
Satsuki'S Softs Maker
 
Shinobu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 189
i've just downloaded the sample file and it's not bad at all, i'll test the encoder with my own source with week (i own some very grainy mpeg2 bluray and some japanese hight quality bluray).
realy impressed from the sample file, for a new codec it seems realy good (from the sample files).
thanks for releasing the decoder opensource, if the encoder could be opensource, it will great too ^^ (i realy don't have the prog level to play with it but i'm sure it will interest some people of the forum ^^)
Shinobu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2009, 21:17   #4  |  Link
nakTT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neiromaster View Post
Interestingly, it seems local inhabitants have lost speech power.
Or the new codec is so bad?
Hi, do I need any special software/decoder to play the encoded file?

nakTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2009, 21:28   #5  |  Link
Shinobu
Satsuki'S Softs Maker
 
Shinobu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 189
yes you need to download the codec of the official website, play fine in mpc et wmp.
Shinobu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2009, 21:34   #6  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,239
To my surprise MPlayer does handle it too
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2009, 22:09   #7  |  Link
nakTT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinobu View Post
yes you need to download the codec of the official website, play fine in mpc et wmp.
Hi,

Can the codec integrate seamlessly with VLC, GOM and WMP11?

nakTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2009, 23:10   #8  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,696
Source Blu-ray h264

SIF1 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


SIF1 reduced resolution to SD


x264 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


x264 is still sharp
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2009, 23:24   #9  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,239
Yes, after a quick test I can say that it cannot compete with x264. But it beats Theora clearly. May depend on the source of course...

Examples encoded at 333 kbps:



__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊

Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 19th October 2009 at 23:42.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2009, 23:43   #10  |  Link
nakTT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
Source Blu-ray h264

SIF1 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


SIF1 reduced resolution to SD


x264 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


x264 is still sharp
Judging by your screenshots, I guess I will not going to test the encoder this time around. Hope the developer will work on it even more to increase quality.
nakTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 05:13   #11  |  Link
Neiromaster
Neiromaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
Source Blu-ray h264

SIF1 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


SIF1 reduced resolution to SD


x264 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


x264 is still sharp
Choice of a correct screenshot this big art.
Two screenshots from the same example.



SIF1



x264

It is not enough 1 megabit for this example. And for X264 too.

For an example.



x264 Shows HD quality



SIF1 Too

In any case the codec with quarter-pel motion compensation will always show the big sharpness, than the codec with half-pel motion compensation.

Therefore I suggest to use Spline64Resize which adds sharpnesses in a picture.

At compression with acceptable bitrate the difference not so is great especially on HD.

In any case, sooner or later in SIF1 too there will be quarter-pel motion compensation.
Neiromaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 06:17   #12  |  Link
Neiromaster
Neiromaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 68
By the way, quality of compression of this example could be improved.
If it is necessary to compress a strongly noisy source in the two-passes моде, on the first pass it was necessary to establish value V.D. Around 100 or above.
Otherwise occurs overcompression on dark scenes.
Neiromaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 11:03   #13  |  Link
Shinobu
Satsuki'S Softs Maker
 
Shinobu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 189
from my first quick tests i can say that on clear hd sources i found x264 better but on very grainy source, the sif1 done a better job on most samples at low, medium bitrates (lest washed out image)
i'm looking for it, but i think if sif1 encoder was opensource it would realy be great ^^
i need to test it more, these impressions was done on 7-15min bluray/dvd samples (need to test more x264 settings too).
Shinobu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 11:41   #14  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
Source Blu-ray h264

SIF1 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


SIF1 reduced resolution to SD


x264 - 1024kbps - 2pass - DOWNLOAD


x264 is still sharp
Looks like SIF is using transforms that are too large. The visual energy from high-complexity areas is overflowing into low-complexity areas because of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neiromaster View Post
In any case the codec with quarter-pel motion compensation will always show the big sharpness, than the codec with half-pel motion compensation.
Completely wrong; at least with H.264, halfpel retains much more sharpness than qpel due to the 6-tap filter.

Either way, I don't consider grain retention to be that interesting a problem. If you're creating a custom video format, you can simply add grain in decoding as postprocessing; this doesn't say anything about good your encoder is in the general case.

The only reason to test grain retention is when dealing with a situation in which you can't add grain during decoding, such as when you want to encode video in an existing video format and decode it in situations in which you don't have control over the decoder. This is why people care about grain retention with x264: we can't simply modify our Blu-ray players to add grain on playback. But if you're starting from scratch with something custom, you can do whatever the hell you want.

This is why the standard test clips are so popular: they aren't lowpassed, grainy messes like most DVDs and Blu-rays and thus provide a perfect test of how efficient an encoder is, rather than how well a decoder can fake the grain.

Finally, note that extremely low bitrates inherently bias towards whatever encoder uses the largest transform size. Once your quantizers in H.264 are over ~35-40, you generally should just encode at a lower resolution by downscaling the video. The same thing happens with JPEG-2000 and JPEG; JPEG-2000 beats JPEG handily once the compression ratio is above about 50:1, but at such a high compression ratio you should been downscaling the image anyways. And when you do, JPEG often wins.

If you encode 720p film at 500kbps, x264 should lose to, for example, a good wavelet encoder. H.264 is not designed for the kind of spatial scalability necessary for such stupid encoding situations. Just downscale the video instead--from what I can tell, SIF is effectively doing the same internally anyways, given how heavily its low bitrate encodes are lowpassed.

Last edited by Dark Shikari; 20th October 2009 at 12:00.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 16:33   #15  |  Link
Neiromaster
Neiromaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 68
I apologise for machine translation, but such text too long to write on English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Looks like SIF is using transforms that are too large. The visual energy from high-complexity areas is overflowing into low-complexity areas because of this.
No. And for many reasons.

1) SIF this adaptive transformation using many various ways of compression depending on local parametres of a signal. To compare it with wavlet transformations incorrectly.

2) Minimum from resampling patterns assumes direct quantization of pixels without any transformation. Like that mode that there will be as a variant in h265, only more flexible as operates with a pattern 2x2 pixel. By the way in a new kernel of compression after core-6 I will enter also patterns 2x1 for even more flexibility.

3) All other used patterns have adaptive filters with the variable size. The size of the filter is dynamically switched for minimisation ringing artefacts around sharp transitions.

4) Therefore SIF practically does not give ringing artefacts without any postfiltration, and perfectly well compresses anime.

Quote:
Completely wrong; at least with H.264, halfpel retains much more sharpness than qpel due to the 6-tap filter.
Too it is not absolutely true.
In the previous explanation I have very much simplified a situation not to go into detail.

In a reality, at weak movings of sharp borders half-pel compensation cannot adequately combine two pictures and residual energy of a signal gives increase in high-frequency components interframe differences. The codec should compress everyone frame much more the data, than at better motion compensation. It leads to overestimate of levels of quantization and accordingly to picture smoothing.
By working out of the experimental codec of the standard h26l the predecessor h264 experiments on various modes of indemnification of movement were made. By results of these experiments it has been established that half-pel motion compensation with long filters practically does not give to any increase to efficiency of compression. In h264 long half-pel the filter serves for creation of a good reference point, for the subsequent quarteri-pel to interpolation. Such scheme has been accepted for acceleration of calculation of vectors of movement and in h265 it will replace.

In especially hard cases, like uniform movement of a contrast caption in the end of a film, the difference between the codec with half-pel motion compensation and the codec with quarteri-pel can reach two times.

Quote:
Either way, I don't consider grain retention to be that interesting a problem. If you're creating a custom video format, you can simply add grain in decoding as postprocessing; this doesn't say anything about good your encoder is in the general case.
Grain saving was not the purpose of the given development.
In this case this consequence of solution of other problem. In-loop filters in spoil low-frequency components on the picture leading to effect plastic face etc.
The it is better these filters, the this effect is less expressed. In H264 these filters the best, but all the same the effect is present.
And this basic weak place of all modern codecs.
Accordingly an overall objective of development SIF of compression was to make the modern codec well compressing without In-loop filters.


Quote:
Finally, note that extremely low bitrates inherently bias towards whatever encoder uses the largest transform size. Once your quantizers in H.264 are over ~35-40, you generally should just encode at a lower resolution by downscaling the video. The same thing happens with JPEG-2000 and JPEG; JPEG-2000 beats JPEG handily once the compression ratio is above about 50:1, but at such a high compression ratio you should been downscaling the image anyways. And when you do, JPEG often wins.
The codec with in-loop the filter should encode the video with redundant quality that the effect from this filtering has not been observe. And than is worse in-loop the filter those above should lift up quality. For example PSNR for RV10 remarkable, and visual quality all bad.
If to measure PSNR for SIF and for H264 it will appear that for SIF PSNR awful, but it is not strongly mirrored in real visual quality. Thus if to improve all parts SIF to level x264 visually SIF will win at equal levels PSNR.
It is the task of the given project.

Last edited by Neiromaster; 20th October 2009 at 16:40.
Neiromaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 18:13   #16  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,696
Quote:
Choice of a correct screenshot this big art.
SIF


I really do not like this "chessboard effect". Letters lost sharpness as well.

x264


Somehow x264 managed to retain sharpness
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 18:22   #17  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
Yes, after a quick test I can say that it cannot compete with x264. But it beats Theora clearly. May depend on the source of course...
Comparing to Theora has no sense. Utterly old Divx3 is better than Theora.
Some people said that SIF1 is already better than Xvid,VC-1 and VP6.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 18:52   #18  |  Link
nakTT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorC View Post
Comparing to Theora has no sense. Utterly old Divx3 is better than Theora.
Some people said that SIF1 is already better than Xvid,VC-1 and VP6.
Really looking forward for the latest update. Hope the developer will update it as frequent as x264. For me, in the world of advanced video encoder, the more the merrier.

nakTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 18:59   #19  |  Link
Neiromaster
Neiromaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
SIF


I really do not like this "chessboard effect". Letters lost sharpness as well.

x264


Somehow x264 managed to retain sharpness
As I already spoke, this example is compressed so strongly that is outside of normal quality for any codec.

In addition, from for incorrectly exposed customisations of the first pass has occurred overcompressed on dark scenes.
For an example, I advise to compress that example in quality based mode - quality will increase.

SIF, as well as any codec without postfiltering has marginal level V.D. After which excess the picture starts to degrade fast. In this case blocks of motion compensation are visible. SIF-transformation of squares does not give.
And at normal levels of compression such does not occur.

With the same success I can disable the postfilter in x264 and show that it will turn out.

Do not frighten local people
Neiromaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 19:42   #20  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,696
Quote:
Do not frighten local people
I'm just showing that SIF at current state is far behind x264.

SIF - 1024 kbps - 1280x720@50fps
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ojmk5d...IF-footbal.avi

x264 - 1024 kbps - 1280x720@50fps
http://www.mediafire.com/file/mw12jj...4-football.mkv

This time without screenshots. You should judge yourself what looks better for you in movement.

If I had option to watch live match via internet I would definitely choose x264.

Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 20th October 2009 at 20:25.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
sif1 open source standard

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 07:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.