Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (10783)

• IJG swings again, and misses

  1er février 2010, par Mans — Multimedia

  Earlier this month the IJG unleashed version 8 of its ubiquitous libjpeg library on the world. Eager to try out the “major breakthrough in image coding technology” promised in the README file accompanying v7, I downloaded the release. A glance at the README file suggests something major indeed is afoot :

  Version 8.0 is the first release of a new generation JPEG standard to overcome the limitations of the original JPEG specification.

  The text also hints at the existence of a document detailing these marvellous new features, and a Google search later a copy has found its way onto my monitor. As I read, however, my state of mind shifts from an initial excited curiosity, through bewilderment and disbelief, finally arriving at pure merriment.

  Already on the first page it becomes clear no new JPEG standard in fact exists. All we have is an unsolicited proposal sent to the ITU-T by members of the IJG. Realising that even the most brilliant of inventions must start off as mere proposals, I carry on reading. The summary informs me that I am about to witness the introduction of three extensions to the T.81 JPEG format :

  1. An alternative coefficient scan sequence for DCT coefficient serialization
  2. A SmartScale extension in the Start-Of-Scan (SOS) marker segment
  3. A Frame Offset definition in or in addition to the Start-Of-Frame (SOF) marker segment

  Together these three extensions will, it is promised, “bring DCT based JPEG back to the forefront of state-of-the-art image coding technologies.”

  Alternative scan

  The first of the proposed extensions introduces an alternative DCT coefficient scan sequence to be used in place of the zigzag scan employed in most block transform based codecs.

  

  Alternative scan sequence

  The advantage of this scan would be that combined with the existing progressive mode, it simplifies decoding of an initial low-resolution image which is enhanced through subsequent passes. The author of the document calls this scheme “image-pyramid/hierarchical multi-resolution coding.” It is not immediately obvious to me how this constitutes even a small advance in image coding technology.

  At this point I am beginning to suspect that our friend from the IJG has been trapped in a half-world between interlaced GIF images transmitted down noisy phone lines and today’s inferno of SVC, MVC, and other buzzwords.

  (Not so) SmartScale

  Disguised behind this camel-cased moniker we encounter a method which, we are told, will provide better image quality at high compression ratios. The author has combined two well-known (to us) properties in a (to him) clever way.

  The first property concerns the perceived impact of different types of distortion in an image. When encoding with JPEG, as the quantiser is increased, the decoded image becomes ever more blocky. At a certain point, a better subjective visual quality can be achieved by down-sampling the image before encoding it, thus allowing a lower quantiser to be used. If the decoded image is scaled back up to the original size, the unpleasant, blocky appearance is replaced with a smooth blur.

  The second property belongs to the DCT where, as we all know, the top-left (DC) coefficient is the average of the entire block, its neighbours represent the lowest frequency components etc. A top-left-aligned subset of the coefficient block thus represents a low-resolution version of the full block in the spatial domain.

  In his flash of genius, our hero came up with the idea of using the DCT for down-scaling the image. Unfortunately, he appears to possess precious little knowledge of sampling theory and human visual perception. Any block-based resampling will inevitably produce sharp artefacts along the block edges. The human visual system is particularly sensitive to sharp edges, so this is one of the most unwanted types of distortion in an encoded image.

  Despite the obvious flaws in this approach, I decided to give it a try. After all, the software is already written, allowing downscaling by factors of 8/8..16.

  Using a 1280×720 test image, I encoded it with each of the nine scaling options, from unity to half size, each time adjusting the quality parameter for a final encoded file size of no more than 200000 bytes. The following table presents the encoded file size, the libjpeg quality parameter used, and the SSIM metric for each of the images.

  Scale	Size	Quality	SSIM
  8/8	198462	59	0.940
  8/9	196337	70	0.936
  8/10	196133	79	0.934
  8/11	197179	84	0.927
  8/12	193872	89	0.915
  8/13	197153	92	0.914
  8/14	188334	94	0.899
  8/15	198911	96	0.886
  8/16	197190	97	0.869

  Although the smaller images allowed a higher quality setting to be used, the SSIM value drops significantly. Numbers may of course be misleading, but the images below speak for themselves. These are cut-outs from the full image, the original on the left, unscaled JPEG-compressed in the middle, and JPEG with 8/16 scaling to the right.

  

  

  Looking at these images, I do not need to hesitate before picking the JPEG variant I prefer.

  Frame offset

  The third and final extension proposed is quite simple and also quite pointless : a top-left cropping to be applied to the decoded image. The alleged utility of this feature would be to enable lossless cropping of a JPEG image. In a typical image workflow, however, JPEG is only used for the final published version, so the need for this feature appears quite far-fetched.

  The grand finale

  Throughout the text, the author makes references to “the fundamental DCT property for image representation.” In his own words :

  This property was found by the author during implementation of the new DCT scaling features and is after his belief one of the most important discoveries in digital image coding after releasing the JPEG standard in 1992.

  The secret is to be revealed in an annex to the main text. This annex quotes in full a post by the author to the comp.dsp Usenet group in a thread with the subject why DCT. Reading the entire thread proves quite amusing. A few excerpts follow.

  The actual reason is much simpler, and therefore apparently very difficult to recognize by complicated-thinking people.

  Here is the explanation :

  What are people doing when they have a bunch of images and want a quick preview ? They use thumbnails ! What are thumbnails ? Thumbnails are small downscaled versions of the original image ! If you want more details of the image, you can zoom in stepwise by enlarging (upscaling) the image.

  So with proper understanding of the fundamental DCT property, the MPEG folks could make their videos more scalable, but, as in the case of JPEG, they are unable to recognize this simple but basic property, unfortunately, and pursue rather inferior approaches in actual developments.

  These are just phrases, and they don’t explain anything. But this is typical for the current state in this field : The relevant people ignore and deny the true reasons, and thus they turn in a circle and no progress is being made.

  However, there are dark forces in action today which ignore and deny any fruitful advances in this field. That is the reason that we didn’t see any progress in JPEG for more than a decade, and as long as those forces dominate, we will see more confusion and less enlightenment. The truth is always simple, and the DCT *is* simple, but this fact is suppressed by established people who don’t want to lose their dubious position.

  I believe a trip to the Total Perspective Vortex may be in order. Perhaps his tin-foil hat will save him.

• Beware the builtins

  14 janvier 2010, par Mans — Compilers

  GCC includes a large number of builtin functions allegedly providing optimised code for common operations not easily expressed directly in C. Rather than taking such claims at face value (this is GCC after all), I decided to conduct a small investigation to see how well a few of these functions are actually implemented for various targets.

  For my test, I selected the following functions :

  • __builtin_bswap32 : Byte-swap a 32-bit word.
  • __builtin_bswap64 : Byte-swap a 64-bit word.
  • __builtin_clz : Count leading zeros in a word.
  • __builtin_ctz : Count trailing zeros in a word.
  • __builtin_prefetch : Prefetch data into cache.

  To test the quality of these builtins, I wrapped each in a normal function, then compiled the code for these targets :

  • ARMv7
  • AVR32
  • MIPS
  • MIPS64
  • PowerPC
  • PowerPC64
  • x86
  • x86_64

  In all cases I used compiler flags were -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer plus any flags required to select a modern CPU model.
  

  ARM

  Both __builtin_clz and __builtin_prefetch generate the expected CLZ and PLD instructions respectively. The code for __builtin_ctz is reasonable for ARMv6 and earlier :

  rsb     r3, r0, #0
  and     r0, r3, r0
  clz     r0, r0
  rsb     r0, r0, #31
  

  For ARMv7 (in fact v6T2), however, using the new bit-reversal instruction would have been better :

  rbit    r0, r0
  clz     r0, r0
  

  I suspect this is simply a matter of the function not yet having been updated for ARMv7, which is perhaps even excusable given the relatively rare use cases for it.

  The byte-reversal functions are where it gets shocking. Rather than use the REV instruction found from ARMv6 on, both of them generate external calls to __bswapsi2 and __bswapdi2 in libgcc, which is plain C code :

  SItype
  __bswapsi2 (SItype u)
  
    return ((((u) & 0xff000000) >> 24)
            | (((u) & 0x00ff0000) >>  8)
            | (((u) & 0x0000ff00) <<  8)
            | (((u) & 0x000000ff) << 24)) ;
  
  DItype
  
  __bswapdi2 (DItype u)
  
  
  
     return ((((u) & 0xff00000000000000ull) >> 56)
  
            | (((u) & 0x00ff000000000000ull) >> 40)
  
            | (((u) & 0x0000ff0000000000ull) >> 24)
  
            | (((u) & 0x000000ff00000000ull) >>  8)
  
            | (((u) & 0x00000000ff000000ull) <<  8)
  
            | (((u) & 0x0000000000ff0000ull) << 24)
  
            | (((u) & 0x000000000000ff00ull) << 40)
  
            | (((u) & 0x00000000000000ffull) << 56)) ;
  
  
  

  While the 32-bit version compiles to a reasonable-looking shift/mask/or job, the 64-bit one is a real WTF. Brace yourselves :

  push    r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, sl, fp
  mov     r5, #0
  mov     r6, #65280 ; 0xff00
  sub     sp, sp, #40 ; 0x28
  and     r7, r0, r5
  and     r8, r1, r6
  str     r7, [sp, #8]
  str     r8, [sp, #12]
  mov     r9, #0
  mov     r4, r1
  and     r5, r0, r9
  mov     sl, #255 ; 0xff
  ldr     r9, [sp, #8]
  and     r6, r4, sl
  mov     ip, #16711680 ; 0xff0000
  str     r5, [sp, #16]
  str     r6, [sp, #20]
  lsl     r2, r0, #24
  and     ip, ip, r1
  lsr     r7, r4, #24
  mov     r1, #0
  lsr     r5, r9, #24
  mov     sl, #0
  mov     r9, #-16777216 ; 0xff000000
  and     fp, r0, r9
  lsr     r6, ip, #8
  orr     r9, r7, r1
  and     ip, r4, sl
  orr     sl, r1, r2
  str     r6, [sp]
  str     r9, [sp, #32]
  str     sl, [sp, #36] ; 0x24
  add     r8, sp, #32
  ldm     r8, r7, r8
  str     r1, [sp, #4]
  ldm     sp, r9, sl
  orr     r7, r7, r9
  orr     r8, r8, sl
  str     r7, [sp, #32]
  str     r8, [sp, #36] ; 0x24
  mov     r3, r0
  mov     r7, #16711680 ; 0xff0000
  mov     r8, #0
  and     r9, r3, r7
  and     sl, r4, r8
  ldr     r0, [sp, #16]
  str     fp, [sp, #24]
  str     ip, [sp, #28]
  stm     sp, r9, sl
  ldr     r7, [sp, #20]
  ldr     sl, [sp, #12]
  ldr     fp, [sp, #12]
  ldr     r8, [sp, #28]
  lsr     r0, r0, #8
  orr     r7, r0, r7, lsl #24
  lsr     r6, sl, #24
  orr     r5, r5, fp, lsl #8
  lsl     sl, r8, #8
  mov     fp, r7
  add     r8, sp, #32
  ldm     r8, r7, r8
  orr     r6, r6, r8
  ldr     r8, [sp, #20]
  ldr     r0, [sp, #24]
  orr     r5, r5, r7
  lsr     r8, r8, #8
  orr     sl, sl, r0, lsr #24
  mov     ip, r8
  ldr     r0, [sp, #4]
  orr     fp, fp, r5
  ldr     r5, [sp, #24]
  orr     ip, ip, r6
  ldr     r6, [sp]
  lsl     r9, r5, #8
  lsl     r8, r0, #24
  orr     fp, fp, r9
  lsl     r3, r3, #8
  orr     r8, r8, r6, lsr #8
  orr     ip, ip, sl
  lsl     r7, r6, #24
  and     r5, r3, #16711680 ; 0xff0000
  orr     r7, r7, fp
  orr     r8, r8, ip
  orr     r4, r1, r7
  orr     r5, r5, r8
  mov     r9, r6
  mov     r1, r5
  mov     r0, r4
  add     sp, sp, #40 ; 0x28
  pop     r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, sl, fp
  bx      lr
  

  That’s right, 91 instructions to move 8 bytes around a bit. GCC definitely has a problem with 64-bit numbers. It is perhaps worth noting that the bswap_64 macro in glibc splits the 64-bit value into 32-bit halves which are then reversed independently, thus side-stepping this weakness of gcc.

  As a side note, ARM RVCT (armcc) compiles those functions perfectly into one and two REV instructions, respectively.

  AVR32

  There is not much to report here. The latest gcc version available is 4.2.4, which doesn’t appear to have the bswap functions. The other three are handled nicely, even using a bit-reverse for __builtin_ctz.

  MIPS / MIPS64

  The situation MIPS is similar to ARM. Both bswap builtins result in external libgcc calls, the rest giving sensible code.

  PowerPC

  I scarcely believe my eyes, but this one is actually not bad. The PowerPC has no byte-reversal instructions, yet someone seems to have taken the time to teach gcc a good instruction sequence for this operation. The PowerPC does have some powerful rotate-and-mask instructions which come in handy here. First the 32-bit version :

  rotlwi  r0,r3,8
  rlwimi  r0,r3,24,0,7
  rlwimi  r0,r3,24,16,23
  mr      r3,r0
  blr
  

  The 64-bit byte-reversal simply applies the above code on each half of the value :

  rotlwi  r0,r3,8
  rlwimi  r0,r3,24,0,7
  rlwimi  r0,r3,24,16,23
  rotlwi  r3,r4,8
  rlwimi  r3,r4,24,0,7
  rlwimi  r3,r4,24,16,23
  mr      r4,r0
  blr
  

  Although I haven’t analysed that code carefully, it looks pretty good.

  PowerPC64

  Doing 64-bit operations is easier on a 64-bit CPU, right ? For you and me perhaps, but not for gcc. Here __builtin_bswap64 gives us the now familiar __bswapdi2 call, and while not as bad as the ARM version, it is not pretty :

  rldicr  r0,r3,8,55
  rldicr  r10,r3,56,7
  rldicr  r0,r0,56,15
  rldicl  r11,r3,8,56
  rldicr  r9,r3,16,47
  or      r11,r10,r11
  rldicr  r9,r9,48,23
  rldicl  r10,r0,24,40
  rldicr  r0,r3,24,39
  or      r11,r11,r10
  rldicl  r9,r9,40,24
  rldicr  r0,r0,40,31
  or      r9,r11,r9
  rlwinm  r10,r3,0,0,7
  rldicl  r0,r0,56,8
  or      r0,r9,r0
  rldicr  r10,r10,8,55
  rlwinm  r11,r3,0,8,15
  or      r0,r0,r10
  rldicr  r11,r11,24,39
  rlwinm  r3,r3,0,16,23
  or      r0,r0,r11
  rldicr  r3,r3,40,23
  or      r3,r0,r3
  blr
  

  That is 6 times longer than the (presumably) hand-written 32-bit version.

  x86 / x86_64

  As one might expect, results on x86 are good. All the tested functions use the available special instructions. One word of caution though : the bit-counting instructions are very slow on some implementations, specifically the Atom, AMD chips, and the notoriously slow Pentium4E.

  Conclusion

  In conclusion, I would say gcc builtins can be useful to avoid fragile inline assembler. Before using them, however, one should make sure they are not in fact harmful on the required targets. Not even those builtins mapping directly to CPU instructions can be trusted.

• My first released WordPress plugin

  23 septembre 2010, par silvia

  I’m pretty proud of this, which is why I’m dedicating a short blog post to it : today, John and I released my first WordPress plugin as open source to the WordPress plugins site. It’s got the boring name “External Videos” and builds a bridge between your WordPress instance and videos of channels on a (...)