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. |
![]() |
#1 | Link |
Linux Guy
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 113
|
Theora: Thusnelda project update 20090507
Interesting updates from the Thusnelda project:
http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html Seems like Theora is making some progress again. The PSNR chart is quite impressing if it holds true. According to the PNSR chart Theora-svn beats x246 at some bit rates. Of course they don't tell us what kind of settings are used so take it with a truckload of salt. ![]() Still, I think it's really great that a completely FREE codec is making so much progress! Comments? Last edited by buba king; 8th May 2009 at 01:35. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,667
|
They apparently used the worst possible x264 settings (yes, subme 0 and so forth) in order to make Theora look better--if Theora didn't win such a test I would be shocked indeed! Instead, they just proved the fact that they're a bunch of liars who are no better than the worst of the proprietary companies they claim to compete against.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | Link | |
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,490
|
Quote:
I also took a gander at their test library: http://media.xiph.org/video/derf/ Those are a lot of very short clips. The longest SD is 2101 frames: just 84 sec (assuming 25p)! Lots of them are 300 frames, and some 115 frames. That's not going to be a realistic test for VBR rate control, or even VBV in some cases. I hope they concatenate them together or use other longer content for tuning. Anyway, their test library is right there if you want to make some counterexample demos ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,667
|
Correction: it turns out their PSNR tool was broken and shaved over 4db off of x264 (but not Theora)
![]() I have the guy who made the test working on correcting it right now. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | Link | |
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,490
|
Quote:
![]() Are they doing a better optimization of settings at the same time? They should really concatenate a bunch of clips together to make this a more interesting test as well. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,667
|
Quote:
But then another blogger hijacked the graph and posted it to demonstrate that Theora was now as good as x264. And away it went... ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | Link |
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,490
|
Ah, one of those...
Well, as long as we're discussing it, what's your take on how far do you think Theora could go? I've been thinking of it being about ASP quality at best; I don't see many tools in there that would let it pull past ASP to make up for the missing B-frames. But it's weird enough that I don't feel confident I understand why it is the way it is, which implies there must have been some magic encoder tweaks they were planning to implement. Superblocks with Hilbert patterns? Encoding bottom-up? They don't seem wrong exactly, but I just don't get why. It's kinda amazing we're still talking about this bitstream. I was a beta tester for VP3, what 11 years ago? It's kind of like a resurgance in developement for Sorenson Video 3, Indeo 5, or ClearVideo... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | Link | ||
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,667
|
Quote:
Straight from the horse's mouth: Quote:
__________________
Follow x264 development progress | akupenguin quotes | x264 git status ffmpeg and x264-related consulting/coding contracts | Doom10 Last edited by Trahald; 9th May 2009 at 15:22. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 1,963
|
You think the theory is bad, try using the library. The documentation includes this note:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,392
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,350
|
Probably, Theora has only two real advantages over ASP, and a lot of obvious problems. The advantages being a not particularly good loop filter, and completely arbitrary quantizer scaling and matrices, the last feature could be exploited a lot, but it would take a lot of work to do so.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,667
|
Actually, it's worse than I thought. xiphmont just told me Theora has no MV prediction.
NONE. Every MV is coded as either 6-bit X and 6-bit Y, or with a global static huffman table. This is worse than MPEG-1. I retract my statement that Theora can ever get near MPEG-4 ASP. Removing MV prediction from x264, by the way, reduces PSNR by 1db at 500kbps on BlackPearl.
__________________
Follow x264 development progress | akupenguin quotes | x264 git status ffmpeg and x264-related consulting/coding contracts | Doom10 Last edited by Dark Shikari; 8th May 2009 at 20:57. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
What is funny and somehow sad @ the same time is that most of these problems have been fixed/improved for sure already by ON2 themselves i mean come on 11 years
![]()
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 Last edited by CruNcher; 8th May 2009 at 21:44. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | Link | |
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,490
|
Quote:
I heard someone has a Dirac MediaStreamSource implementation for Silverlight too. This new Raw AV pipeline is going to force me to learn about too many new codecs ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,350
|
Dirac is, if anything, less likely to become useful at any point in the future then theora. When I tested it it was still worse quality then snow, though its been developed for multiples of time longer, it was also still incredibly slow, compared to snow, or anything else. If there are settings for it that give good quality, they must be unimaginably slow, and before anyone says anything, I was using schroedinger, as that is supposed to be the better and faster implementation.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,667
|
Quote:
1. Interframe wavelets suck. 2. Intraframe wavelets suck more. 3. Intra wavelets in inter frames suck even more. No intra prediction. 4. BBC has practically given up on Dirac. 5. Encoder doesn't even implement all of the Dirac spec, let alone well. 6. Doesn't have variable motion partition sizes. 7. Crappy entropy coder. 8. Over-complex motion compensation (even worse than Snow's OBMC in terms of computational cost). 9. Still not better than Snow. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
|
Quote:
I don't think I've ever ran into a Dirac-encoded video yet in the wild.. anywere. Even is 'Free Software' circles, which Theora is pretty common. Quote:
Redhat, first and formost, is a "Open Source Software" company. Everything they touch they open source. Sure they charge money for binary downloads, but your not paying for the license your paying for a year of support. Everything they provide you can download, free of charge, from their ftp sites. As part of what makes 'OSS' useful is the ability to use it with as minimal amount of restrictions and you need to be free to modify and redistribute the software. I suppose Redhat is looking to ship products that include the ability to stream encoded video. If they used something like H.264 then they would not only be forced to pay licensing costs they would be hurting the end user's ability to modify and redistribute working examples of the software legally. So weither or not Theora is actually competitive is completely secondary. The fact that it is 'Free' in the open source way of looking at things is much more important. Of course if pushing a relatively small amount of money towards the goal of improving Theora will yeild good returns then that is probably worth it in Redhat's eyes. I expect that, along with pretty much all open source software that I've ever seen in relation with media or whatnot, that they won't restrict the user's ability to add H.264 or anything else at the customer's own risk. Redhat just won't do it by default. And it's not like the Thusnalda project has not yeilded some successes. Even though I seriously doubt that Theora will ever be a rival to H.264 they have boosted the quality quite a bit. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 7,034
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
theora, x264 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|