Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (12715)

• Inside WebM Technology : VP8 Intra and Inter Prediction

  20 juillet 2010, par noreply@blogger.com (Lou Quillio)
  Continuing our series on WebM technology, I will discuss the use of prediction methods in the VP8 video codec, with special attention to the TM_PRED and SPLITMV modes, which are unique to VP8.

  
  

  First, some background. To encode a video frame, block-based codecs such as VP8 first divide the frame into smaller segments called macroblocks. Within each macroblock, the encoder can predict redundant motion and color information based on previously processed blocks. The redundant data can be subtracted from the block, resulting in more efficient compression.

  
  Image by Fido Factor, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License.
  Based on a work at www.flickr.com

  
  

  A VP8 encoder uses two classes of prediction :

  • Intra prediction uses data within a single video frame
  • Inter prediction uses data from previously encoded frames

  The residual signal data is then encoded using other techniques, such as transform coding.

  
  

  VP8 Intra Prediction Modes

  VP8 intra prediction modes are used with three types of macroblocks :

  • 4x4 luma
  • 16x16 luma
  • 8x8 chroma

  Four common intra prediction modes are shared by these macroblocks :
  

  • H_PRED (horizontal prediction). Fills each column of the block with a copy of the left column, L.
  • V_PRED (vertical prediction). Fills each row of the block with a copy of the above row, A.
  • DC_PRED (DC prediction). Fills the block with a single value using the average of the pixels in the row above A and the column to the left of L.
  • TM_PRED (TrueMotion prediction). A mode that gets its name from a compression technique developed by On2 Technologies. In addition to the row A and column L, TM_PRED uses the pixel P above and to the left of the block. Horizontal differences between pixels in A (starting from P) are propagated using the pixels from L to start each row.

  For 4x4 luma blocks, there are six additional intra modes similar to V_PRED and H_PRED, but correspond to predicting pixels in different directions. These modes are outside the scope of this post, but if you want to learn more see the VP8 Bitstream Guide.

  
  

  As mentioned above, the TM_PRED mode is unique to VP8. The following figure uses an example 4x4 block of pixels to illustrate how the TM_PRED mode works :

  

  Where C, As and Ls represent reconstructed pixel values from previously coded blocks, and X₀₀ through X₃₃ represent predicted values for the current block. TM_PRED uses the following equation to calculate X_ij :

  
  

  X_ij = L_i + A_j - C (i, j=0, 1, 2, 3)

  
  

  Although the above example uses a 4x4 block, the TM_PRED mode for 8x8 and 16x16 blocks works in the same fashion.

  TM_PRED is one of the more frequently used intra prediction modes in VP8, and for common video sequences it is typically used by 20% to 45% of all blocks that are intra coded. Overall, together with other intra prediction modes, TM_PRED helps VP8 to achieve very good compression efficiency, especially for key frames, which can only use intra modes (key frames by their very nature cannot refer to previously encoded frames).

  
  

  VP8 Inter Prediction Modes

  
  

  In VP8, inter prediction modes are used only on inter frames (non-key frames). For any VP8 inter frame, there are typically three previously coded reference frames that can be used for prediction. A typical inter prediction block is constructed using a motion vector to copy a block from one of the three frames. The motion vector points to the location of a pixel block to be copied. In most video compression schemes, a good portion of the bits are spent on encoding motion vectors ; the portion can be especially large for video encoded at lower datarates.

  
  

  Like previous VPx codecs, VP8 encodes motion vectors very efficiently by reusing vectors from neighboring macroblocks (a macroblock includes one 16x16 luma block and two 8x8 chroma blocks). VP8 uses a similar strategy in the overall design of inter prediction modes. For example, the prediction modes "NEAREST" and "NEAR" make use of last and second-to-last, non-zero motion vectors from neighboring macroblocks. These inter prediction modes can be used in combination with any of the three different reference frames.

  
  

  In addition, VP8 has a very sophisticated, flexible inter prediction mode called SPLITMV. This mode was designed to enable flexible partitioning of a macroblock into sub-blocks to achieve better inter prediction. SPLITMV is very useful when objects within a macroblock have different motion characteristics. Within a macroblock coded using SPLITMV mode, each sub-block can have its own motion vector. Similar to the strategy of reusing motion vectors at the macroblock level, a sub-block can also use motion vectors from neighboring sub-blocks above or left to the current block. This strategy is very flexible and can effectively encode any shape of sub-macroblock partitioning, and does so efficiently. Here is an example of a macroblock with 16x16 luma pixels that is partitioned to 16 4x4 blocks :

  
  

  

  
  

  where New represents a 4x4 bock coded with a new motion vector, and Left and Above represent a 4x4 block coded using the motion vector from the left and above, respectively. This example effectively partitions the 16x16 macroblock into 3 different segments with 3 different motion vectors (represented below by 1, 2 and 3) :

  
  

  

  
  

  Through effective use of intra and inter prediction modes, WebM encoder implementations can achieve great compression quality on a wide range of source material. If you want to delve further into VP8 prediction modes, read the VP8 Bitstream Guide or examine the reconintra.c and rdopt.c files in the VP8 source tree.

  
  

  Yaowu Xu, Ph.D. is a codec engineer at Google.

  
  

  

• Build : Set atBegin option for watch task

  5 juin 2014, par jzaefferer

  Build : Set atBegin option for watch task

• Simply beyond ridiculous

  7 mai 2010, par Dark Shikari — H.265, speed

  For the past few years, various improvements on H.264 have been periodically proposed, ranging from larger transforms to better intra prediction. These finally came together in the JCT-VC meeting this past April, where over two dozen proposals were made for a next-generation video coding standard. Of course, all of these were in very rough-draft form ; it will likely take years to filter it down into a usable standard. In the process, they’ll pick the most useful features (hopefully) from each proposal and combine them into something a bit more sane. But, of course, it all has to start somewhere.

  A number of features were common : larger block sizes, larger transform sizes, fancier interpolation filters, improved intra prediction schemes, improved motion vector prediction, increased internal bit depth, new entropy coding schemes, and so forth. A lot of these are potentially quite promising and resolve a lot of complaints I’ve had about H.264, so I decided to try out the proposal that appeared the most interesting : the Samsung+BBC proposal (A124), which claims compression improvements of around 40%.

  The proposal combines a bouillabaisse of new features, ranging from a 12-tap interpolation filter to 12thpel motion compensation and transforms as large as 64×64. Overall, I would say it’s a good proposal and I don’t doubt their results given the sheer volume of useful features they’ve dumped into it. I was a bit worried about complexity, however, as 12-tap interpolation filters don’t exactly scream “fast”.

  I prepared myself for the slowness of an unoptimized encoder implementation, compiled their tool, and started a test encode with their recommended settings.

  I waited. The first frame, an I-frame, completed.

  I took a nap.

  I waited. The second frame, a P-frame, was done.

  I played a game of Settlers.

  I waited. The third frame, a B-frame, was done.

  I worked on a term paper.

  I waited. The fourth frame, a B-frame, was done.

  After a full 6 hours, 8 frames had encoded. Yes, at this rate, it would take a full two weeks to encode 10 seconds of HD video. On a Core i7. This is not merely slow ; this is over 1000 times slower than x264 on “placebo” mode. This is so slow that it is not merely impractical ; it is impossible to even test. This encoder is apparently designed for some sort of hypothetical future computer from space. And word from other developers is that the Intel proposal is even slower.

  This has led me to suspect that there is a great deal of cheating going on in the H.265 proposals. The goal of the proposals, of course, is to pick the best feature set for the next generation video compression standard. But there is an extra motivation : organizations whose features get accepted get patents on the resulting standard, and thus income. With such large sums of money in the picture, dishonesty becomes all the more profitable.

  There is a set of rules, of course, to limit how the proposals can optimize their encoders. If different encoders use different optimization techniques, the results will no longer be comparable — remember, they are trying to compare compression features, not methods of optimizing encoder-side decisions. Thus all encoders are required to use a constant quantizer, specified frame types, and so forth. But there are no limits on how slow an encoder can be or what algorithms it can use.

  It would be one thing if the proposed encoder was a mere 10 times slower than the current reference ; that would be reasonable, given the low level of optimization and higher complexity of the new standard. But this is beyond ridiculous. With the prize given to whoever can eke out the most PSNR at a given quantizer at the lowest bitrate (with no limits on speed), we’re just going to get an arms race of slow encoders, with every company trying to use the most ridiculous optimizations possible, even if they involve encoding the frame 100,000 times over to choose the optimal parameters. And the end result will be as I encountered here : encoders so slow that they are simply impossible to even test.

  Such an arms race certainly does little good in optimizing for reality where we don’t have 30 years to encode an HD movie : a feature that gives great compression improvements is useless if it’s impossible to optimize for in a reasonable amount of time. Certainly once the standard is finalized practical encoders will be written — but it makes no sense to optimize the standard for a use-case that doesn’t exist. And even attempting to “optimize” anything is difficult when encoding a few seconds of video takes weeks.

  Update : The people involved have contacted me and insist that there was in fact no cheating going on. This is probably correct ; the problem appears to be that the rules that were set out were simply not strict enough, making many changes that I would intuitively consider “cheating” to be perfectly allowed, and thus everyone can do it.

  I would like to apologize if I implied that the results weren’t valid ; they are — the Samsung-BBC proposal is definitely one of the best, which is why I picked it to test with. It’s just that I think any situation in which it’s impossible to test your own software is unreasonable, and thus the entire situation is an inherently broken one, given the lax rules, slow baseline encoder, and no restrictions on compute time.