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 24th December 2015, 12:36   #21  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by shekh View Post
Does the same (b64a via quicktime) work with cineform? Just found CFHDCodec.qtx on my machine, so at least the component exist.
Still no idea if it works at all, but there is only 32bit component, and it seems the whole quicktime thing is 32bit only. What a mess. (I am complaining about memory addressing/architecture, not pixel format).
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2015, 14:54   #22  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,472
Cineform qt component should definitely support b64a and v210 (and probably some other) pixel formats. It will be 32bit, as QT is 32bit on Windows.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2015, 12:38   #23  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
Damn, the agreement for Cineform sdk is embedded into sdk installer. Now I remember I actually did read it. It says: the SDK is for evaluation only and nothing is allowed.
Btw the trial key provided allows only YUV 10 bit encoding which makes the evaluation not much interesting.
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 00:17   #24  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,472
You could use MagicYUV, but 10bit support is not free. It does support different pixel formats including b64a.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 11:25   #25  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
My expectation for lossless codec even at 8 bits (based on utvideo) - too big files, too much I/O bandwidth.
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 13:51   #26  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,472
Well, it's lossless so no way to escape from bigger size.
Not many options left
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 14:12   #27  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
Dont worry
After cutting all options it looks like cineform v210 is ok - same 10 bits as anything else. It is sad that v210 wrapping/unwrapping kills more time than decoding itself but anyway estimated overall performance is about the same as just HQX rgb24 decoding.
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 14:31   #28  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,472
If you look at ffmpeg code I think they have there very optimised code for v210 unpacking.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 19:16   #29  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak View Post
HQX 10bit is supported in MOV through v210. b64a and r4fl pixel formats seams to be also supported.
Another thing- good luck with trying to get access to Grass Valley SDK. It seams to be impossible, even if such a thing does exist.
Several years ago I was quoted a price for licensing the HQX SDK, around $25K IIRC. Never went so far that I had engineers able to review it and determine its capabilities.

It's a very painful codec in so many ways. Lots of in-the-wild files I've seen didn't even have proper field order or aspect ratio metadata! Maybe there are in some sort of bitstream level private metadata or something.

I don't know why anyone would want to make new files in that format given those challenges and its relative inefficiency, but at least ffmpeg now appears to have a good decoder.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2015, 21:00   #30  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,472
Well, it's not that bad from the consumer point of view (not sure about internals). Efficiency is about the same as ProRes or DNxHD. It's about as fast to decode as ProRes. GV uses their own metadata in AVI, so it works fine inside their environment.
The problem is with owner, thought they were persuaded to give it for free. SDK is yet another story
I still prefer Cineform as it's very unique and powerful technology.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2016, 16:09   #31  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
Is VirtualDub considered safe for v210 packing/unpacking?

I did some simple tests: took rgb24 picture, encoded it as uncompressed v210, decoded back to rgb24.
And what I see is
precision loss: for example 129,129,129 turned 130,129,130
horizontal smearing: I know v210 is 4:2:2 but the resulting smearing is much stronger than that

So is it all wrong or am I missing something?
And as a minor issue there is no way to tell what matrix it should use (alias format cannot handle it).
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2016, 09:39   #32  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
Well maybe that smearing is in fact correct. But what disappointed me, it looks like cineform can output better resolution as rgb24 (looks not subsampled at all), while v210 output is smeared.
Interesting how that works if the codec is claimed as 10 bit YUV. Maybe some block masks? Anyhow, I guess this only magically improves my test pattern (straight color blocks).
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2016, 10:42   #33  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,472
It's 444->422+ Cineform is not lossless, so there will be quality loss.
It's normal that you see quality loss.
Matrix is chosen automatically + old days you had control over it. I'm sure in SDK you have full control.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2016, 12:32   #34  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
I dont expect lossless from Cineform, but I did expect that when I use Cineform vfw codec with v210 format it will give better quility (or at least not worse) than rgb24 format.
I assumed that it is internally decoded as 4:2:2* and then losslessly stored to v210. But it seems to do the opposite: internally decoded as 4:4:4 and then reduced to 4:2:2 and stored?

*I know from SDK that Cineform has variety of bitstream formats, I am talking about their basic lightweight 4:2:2 10 bit YUV format.

"precision loss: for example 129,129,129 turned 130,129,130"
Here I was talking about pure VD conversions, no codec. Needed something to compare with. Cineform in this place creates noise in range about 126-136 at low quality, but it is ok.
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2016, 12:50   #35  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by shekh View Post
Is VirtualDub considered safe for v210 packing/unpacking?

precision loss: for example 129,129,129 turned 130,129,130
All right, that conversion is nonsence, because it first converts 8bit rgb to 8bit low range yuv, and only after upconverts yuv to floating, and then down to 10 bit.
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2016, 00:10   #36  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by shekh View Post
I dont expect lossless from Cineform, but I did expect that when I use Cineform vfw codec with v210 format it will give better quility (or at least not worse) than rgb24 format.
I assumed that it is internally decoded as 4:2:2* and then losslessly stored to v210. But it seems to do the opposite: internally decoded as 4:4:4 and then reduced to 4:2:2 and stored?

*I know from SDK that Cineform has variety of bitstream formats, I am talking about their basic lightweight 4:2:2 10 bit YUV format.

"precision loss: for example 129,129,129 turned 130,129,130"
Here I was talking about pure VD conversions, no codec. Needed something to compare with. Cineform in this place creates noise in range about 126-136 at low quality, but it is ok.
Vdub can send v210 data to Cineform and this is without any conversion (if no filters used). 8bit<->10bit can always introduce 1 level shifts.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2016, 11:05   #37  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
OMG, ffmpeg 3 lists Cineform HD decoder.
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2016, 11:12   #38  |  Link
sneaker_ger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,570
Already discussed a few threads below:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=173154
sneaker_ger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2016, 11:28   #39  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 759
thanks
shekh 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 17:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.