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. |
8th February 2003, 15:30 | #81 | Link | |
Penguin Pilferer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 163
|
Quote:
|
|
8th February 2003, 20:50 | #82 | Link |
VDubMod Devel
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 |
9th February 2003, 16:05 | #83 | Link |
Penguin Pilferer
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. |
10th February 2003, 05:04 | #84 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Rock is dead! Long live paper and scissors. |
||
11th February 2003, 00:43 | #85 | Link |
Banned
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... |
11th February 2003, 09:04 | #86 | Link | |
Matroska Dev
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 230
|
Quote:
__________________
The Matroska Effect |
|
11th February 2003, 19:09 | #87 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Croatia [local name:Hrvatska]
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
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...) |
|
14th February 2003, 21:37 | #89 | Link |
XviD fan
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 |
14th February 2003, 21:45 | #90 | Link |
Pig on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,718
|
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... |
15th February 2003, 04:50 | #91 | Link |
developer wannabe
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
|
16th February 2003, 13:08 | #92 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
|
ho ho hold on there, quality diff with yv12?
Quote:
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 |
|
16th February 2003, 22:19 | #94 | Link |
XviD fan
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. |
16th February 2003, 22:49 | #95 | Link | |
Pig on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,718
|
Quote:
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... |
|
17th February 2003, 21:58 | #98 | Link |
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.
|
18th February 2003, 19:37 | #100 | Link |
XviD fan
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) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|