Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (12119)

• My journey to Coviu

  27 octobre 2015, par silvia

  My new startup just released our MVP – this is the story of what got me here.

  I love creating new applications that let people do their work better or in a manner that wasn’t possible before.

  My first such passion was as a student intern when I built a system for a building and loan association’s monthly customer magazine. The group I worked with was managing their advertiser contacts through a set of paper cards and I wrote a dBase based system (yes, that long ago) that would manage their customer relationships. They loved it – until it got replaced by an SAP system that cost 100 times what I cost them, had really poor UX, and only gave them half the functionality. It was a corporate system with ongoing support, which made all the difference to them.

  The story repeated itself with a CRM for my Uncle’s construction company, and with a resume and quotation management system for Accenture right after Uni, both of which I left behind when I decided to go into research.

  Even as a PhD student, I never lost sight of challenges that people were facing and wanted to develop technology to overcome problems. The aim of my PhD thesis was to prepare for the oncoming onslaught of audio and video on the Internet (yes, this was 1994 !) by developing algorithms to automatically extract and locate information in such files, which would enable users to structure, index and search such content.

  Many of the use cases that we explored are now part of products or continue to be challenges : finding music that matches your preferences, identifying music or video pieces e.g. to count ads on the radio or to mark copyright infringement, or the automated creation of video summaries such as trailers.

  

  This continued when I joined the CSIRO in Australia – I was working on segmenting speech into words or talk spurts since that would simplify captioning & subtitling, and on MPEG-7 which was a (slightly over-engineered) standard to structure metadata about audio and video.

  In 2001 I had the idea of replicating the Web for videos : i.e. creating hyperlinked and searchable video-only experiences. We called it “Annodex” for annotated and indexed video and it needed full-screen hyperlinked video in browsers – man were we ahead of our time ! It was my first step into standards, got several IETF RFCs to my name, and started my involvement with open codecs through Xiph.

  Around the time that YouTube was founded in 2006, I founded Vquence – originally a video search company for the Web, but pivoted to a video metadata mining company. Vquence still exists and continues to sell its data to channel partners, but it lacks the user impact that has always driven my work.

  As the video element started being developed for HTML5, I had to get involved. I contributed many use cases to the W3C, became a co-editor of the HTML5 spec and focused on video captioning with WebVTT while contracting to Mozilla and later to Google. We made huge progress and today the technology exists to publish video on the Web with captions, making the Web more inclusive for everybody. I contributed code to YouTube and Google Chrome, but was keen to make a bigger impact again.

  The opportunity came when a couple of former CSIRO colleagues who now worked for NICTA approached me to get me interested in addressing new use cases for video conferencing in the context of WebRTC. We worked on a kiosk-style solution to service delivery for large service organisations, particularly targeting government. The emerging WebRTC standard posed many technical challenges that we addressed by building rtc.io , by contributing to the standards, and registering bugs on the browsers.

  Fast-forward through the development of a few further custom solutions for customers in health and education and we are starting to see patterns of need emerge. The core learning that we’ve come away with is that to get things done, you have to go beyond “talking heads” in a video call. It’s not just about seeing the other person, but much more about having a shared view of the things that need to be worked on and a shared way of interacting with them. Also, we learnt that the things that are being worked on are quite varied and may include multiple input cameras, digital documents, Web pages, applications, device data, controls, forms.

  So we set out to build a solution that would enable productive remote collaboration to take place. It would need to provide an excellent user experience, it would need to be simple to work with, provide for the standard use cases out of the box, yet be architected to be extensible for specialised data sharing needs that we knew some of our customers had. It would need to be usable directly on Coviu.com, but also able to integrate with specialised applications that some of our customers were already using, such as the applications that they spend most of their time in (CRMs, practice management systems, learning management systems, team chat systems). It would need to require our customers to sign up, yet their clients to join a call without sign-up.

  Collaboration is a big problem. People are continuing to get more comfortable with technology and are less and less inclined to travel distances just to get a service done. In a country as large as Australia, where 12% of the population lives in rural and remote areas, people may not even be able to travel distances, particularly to receive or provide recurring or specialised services, or to achieve work/life balance. To make the world a global village, we need to be able to work together better remotely.

  The need for collaboration is being recognised by specialised Web applications already, such as the LiveShare feature of Invision for Designers, Codassium for pair programming, or the recently announced Dropbox Paper. Few go all the way to video – WebRTC is still regarded as a complicated feature to support.

  

  With Coviu, we’d like to offer a collaboration feature to every Web app. We now have a Web app that provides a modern and beautifully designed collaboration interface. To enable other Web apps to integrate it, we are now developing an API. Integration may entail customisation of the data sharing part of Coviu – something Coviu has been designed for. How to replicate the data and keep it consistent when people collaborate remotely – that is where Coviu makes a difference.

  We have started our journey and have just launched free signup to the Coviu base product, which allows individuals to own their own “room” (i.e. a fixed URL) in which to collaborate with others. A huge shout out goes to everyone in the Coviu team – a pretty amazing group of people – who have turned the app from an idea to reality. You are all awesome !

  With Coviu you can share and annotate :

  • images (show your mum photos of your last holidays, or get feedback on an architecture diagram from a customer),
  • pdf files (give a presentation remotely, or walk a customer through a contract),
  • whiteboards (brainstorm with a colleague), and
  • share an application window (watch a YouTube video together, or work through your task list with your colleagues).

  All of these are regarded as “shared documents” in Coviu and thus have zooming and annotations features and are listed in a document tray for ease of navigation.

  This is just the beginning of how we want to make working together online more productive. Give it a go and let us know what you think.

  http://coviu.com/

• Vedanti and Max Sound vs. Google

  14 août 2014, par Multimedia Mike — Legal/Ethical

  Vedanti Systems Limited (VSL) and Max Sound Coporation filed a lawsuit against Google recently. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t care about corporate legal battles. However, this one interests me because it’s multimedia-related. I’m curious to know how coding technology patents might hold up in a real court case.

  Here’s the most entertaining complaint in the lawsuit :

  Despite Google’s well-publicized Code of Conduct — “Don’t be Evil” — which it explains is “about doing the right thing,” “following the law,” and “acting honorably,” Google, in fact, has an established pattern of conduct which is the exact opposite of its claimed piety.

  I wonder if this is the first known case in which Google has been sued over its long-obsoleted “Don’t be evil” mantra ?

  Researching The Plaintiffs
  
  I think I made a mistake by assuming this lawsuit might have merit. My first order of business was to see what the plaintiff organizations have produced. I have a strong feeling that these might be run of the mill patent trolls.

  VSL currently has a blank web page. Further, the Wayback Machine only has pages reaching back to 2011. The earliest page lists these claims against a plain black background (I’ve highlighted some of the more boisterous claims and the passages that make it appear that Vedanti doesn’t actually produce anything but is strictly an IP organization) :

  The inventions key :
  The patent and software reduced any data content, without compressing, up to a 97% total reduction of the data which also produces a lossless result. This physics based invention is often called the Holy Grail.

  Vedanti Systems Intellectual Property
  Our strategic IP portfolio is granted in all of the world’s largest technology development and use countries. A major value indemnification of our licensee products is the early date of invention filing and subsequent Issue. Vedanti IP has an intrinsic 20 year patent protection and valuation in royalties and licensing. The original data transmission art has no prior art against it.

  Vedanti Systems invented among other firsts, The Slice and Partitioning of Macroblocks within a RGB Tri level region in a frame to select or not, the pixel.

  Vedanti Systems invention is used in nearly every wireless chipset and handset in the world

  Our original pixel selection system revolutionized wireless handset communications. An example of this system “Slice” and “Macroblock Partitioning” is used throughout Satellite channel expansion, Wireless partitioning, Telecom – Video Conferencing, Surveillance Cameras, and 2010 developing Media applications.

  Vedanti Systems is a Semiconductor based software, applications, and IP Continuations Intellectual Property company.

  Let’s move onto the other plaintiff, Max Sound. They have a significantly more substantive website. They also have an Android app named Spins HD Audio, which appears to be little more than a music player based on the screenshots.

  Max Sound also has a stock ticker symbol : MAXD. Something clicked into place when I looked up their ticker symbol : While worth only a few pennies, it was worth a few more pennies after this lawsuit was announced, which might be one of the motivations behind the lawsuit.

  Here’s a trick I learned when I was looking for a new tech job last year : When I first look at a company’s website and am trying to figure out what they really do, I head straight to their jobs/careers page. A lot of corporate websites have way too much blathering corporatese that can be tough to cut through. But when I see what mix of talent and specific skills they are hoping to hire, that gives me a much better portrait of what the company does.

  The reason I bring this up is because this tech company doesn’t seem to have jobs/careers page.

  The Lawsuit
  The core complaint centers around Patent 7974339 : Optimized data transmission system and method. It was filed in July 2004 (or possibly as early as January 2002), issued in July 2011, and assigned (purchased ?) by Vedanti in May 2012. The lawsuit alleges that nearly everything Google has ever produced (or, more accurately, purchased) leverages the patented technology.

  The patent itself has 5 drawings. If you’ve ever seen a multimedia codec patent, or any whitepaper on a multimedia codec, you’ve seen these graphs before. E.g., “Raw pixels come in here -> some analysis happens here -> more analysis happens over here -> entropy coding -> final bitstream”. The text of a patent document isn’t meant to be particularly useful. I’ve tried to understand this stuff before and it never goes well. Skimming the text, I just see a blur of the words data, transmission, pixel, and matrix.

  So I read the complaint to try to figure out what this is all about. To summarize the storyline as narrated by the lawsuit, some inventors were unhappy with the state of video compression in 2001 and endeavored to create something better. So they did, and called it the VSL codec. This codec is so far undocumented on the MultimediaWiki, so it probably has yet to be seen “in the wild”. Good luck finding hard technical data on it now since searches for “VSL codec” are overwhelmed by articles about this lawsuit. Also, the original codec probably wasn’t called VSL because VSL is apparently an IP organization formed much later.

  Then, the protagonists of the lawsuit patented the codec. Then, years later, Google wanted to purchase a video codec that they could open source and use to supplant H.264.

  The complaint goes on to allege that in 2010, Google specifically contacted VSL to possibly license or acquire this mysterious VSL technology. Google was allegedly allowed to study the technology, eventually decided not to continue discussions, and shipped back the proprietary materials.

  Here’s where things get weird. When Google shipped back the materials, they allegedly shipped back a bunch of Post-It notes. The notes are alleged to contain a ton of incriminating evidence. The lawsuit claims that the notes contained such tidbits as :

  • Google was concerned that its infringement could be considered “recklessness” (the standard applicable to willful infringement) ;
  • Google personnel should “try” to destroy incriminating emails ;
  • Google should consider a “design around” because it was facing a “risk of litigation.”

  Actually, given Google’s acquisition of On2, I can totally believe that last one (On2’s codecs have famously contained a lot of weirdness which is commonly suspected to be attributable to designing around known patents).

  Anyway, a lot of this case seems to hinge on the authenticity of these Post-It notes :

  “65. The Post-It notes are unequivocal evidence of Google’s knowledge of the ’339 Patent and infringement by Defendants”

  I wish I could find a stock photo of a stack of Post-It notes in an evidence bag.

  I’ve worked at big technology companies. Big tech companies these days are very diligent about indoctrinating employees about IP liability issues. The reason this Post-It situation strikes me as odd is because the alleged contents of the notes basically outline everything the corporate lawyers tell you NOT to do.

  Analysis
  I’m trying to determine what specific algorithms and coding techniques. I guess I was expecting to see a specific claim that, “Our patent outlines this specific coding technique and here is unequivocal proof that Google A) uses the same technique, and B) specifically did so after looking at our patent.” I didn’t find that (well, a bit of part B, c.f., the Post-It note debacle), but maybe that’s not how these patent lawsuits operate. I’ve never kept up before.

  Maybe it’s just a patent troll. Maybe it’s for the stock bump. I’m expecting to see pump-n-dump stock spam featuring the stock symbol MAXD anytime now.

  I’ve never been interested in following a lawsuit case carefully before. I suddenly find myself wondering if I can subscribe to the RSS feed for this case ? Too much to hope for. But I found this item through Pando and maybe they’ll stay on top of it.

• Problems with frame rate on video conversion using ffmpeg with libx264 [migrated]

  29 mai 2013, par Lars Schroeter

  I have problems with transcoding some videos. I ran the most simple ffmpeg command and it takes very long time and the output file is about 10 times bigger. If I provide the frame rate parameter -r it works well (small file, fast transcoding). What is the problem and how can I solve it ? I don't want to set a fixed frame rate because I guess it's better to leave it the same as source, isn't it ?.

  Maybe the problem is something else, because I found many examples in web where the -r option isn't used. Also transcoding to a different format or with a different source works well without -r option (I tried with ffmpeg 0.7.15 and also 1.2.1). The videos are provided by the users of my website and automatically converted to be suitable for the web. So I need the most general command for automatic conversion.

  In the following ffmpeg output you will find this two suspicious messages :

  • Frame rate very high for a muxer not effciciently supporting it. Please consider specifiying a lower framerate, a different muxer or -vsync 2
  • MB rate (36000000) > level limit (983040)

  The ffmpeg command and output (without -r option) :

      ffmpeg -i '/tmp/standort_aquarium.mp4' -vcodec libx264 output.mp4
  
      ffmpeg version 0.7.15, Copyright (c) 2000-2013 the FFmpeg developers  built on Feb 22 2013 07:18:58 with gcc 4.4.5  configuration : —enable-libdc1394 —prefix=/usr —extra-cflags='-Wall -g ' —cc='ccache cc' —enable-shared —enable-libmp3lame —enable-gpl —enable-libvorbis —enable-pthreads —enable-libfaac —enable-libxvid —enable-postproc —enable-x11grab —enable-libgsm —enable-libtheora —enable-libopencore-amrnb —enable-libopencore-amrwb —enable-libx264 —enable-libspeex —enable-nonfree —disable-stripping —enable-avfilter —enable-libdirac —disable-decoder=libdirac —enable-libfreetype —enable-libschroedinger —disable-encoder=libschroedinger —enable-version3 —enable-libopenjpeg —enable-libvpx —enable-librtmp —extra-libs=-lgcrypt —disable-altivec —disable-armv5te —disable-armv6 —disable-vis
  
        libavutil    50. 43. 0 / 50. 43. 0
  
        libavcodec   52.123. 0 / 52.123. 0
  
        libavformat  52.111. 0 / 52.111. 0
  
        libavdevice  52.  5. 0 / 52.  5. 0
  
        libavfilter   1. 80. 0 /  1. 80. 0
  
        libswscale    0. 14. 1 /  0. 14. 1
  
        libpostproc  51.  2. 0 / 51.  2. 0
  
      Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from '/tmp/standort_aquarium.mp4' :
  
        Metadata :
  
          major_brand : mp42
  
          minor_version : 0
  
          compatible_brands : mp423gp4isom
  
          creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
        Duration : 00:00:18.24, start : 0.000000, bitrate : 2095 kb/s
  
          Stream #0.0(und) : Video : mpeg4, yuv420p, 640x480 [PAR 1:1 DAR 4:3], 2001 kb/s, 14.97 fps, 30k tbr, 30k tbn, 30k tbc
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
          Stream #0.1(und) : Audio : aac, 48000 Hz, mono, s16, 96 kb/s
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
      File 'output.mp4' already exists. Overwrite ? [y/N] y
  
      [mp4 @ 0x20eed80] Frame rate very high for a muxer not effciciently supporting it.
  
      Please consider specifiying a lower framerate, a different muxer or -vsync 2
  
      [buffer @ 0x20f8820] w:640 h:480 pixfmt:yuv420p tb:1/1000000 sar:1/1 sws_param :
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] Default settings detected, using medium profile
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] using SAR=1/1
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] MB rate (36000000) > level limit (983040)
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] using cpu capabilities : MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 FastShuffle SSE4.2
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] profile High, level 5.1
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] 264 - core 118 - H.264/MPEG-4 AVC codec - Copyleft 2003-2011 - http://www.videolan.org/x264.html - options : cabac=1 ref=3 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x3:0x113 me=hex subme=7 psy=1 psy_rd=1.00:0.00 mixed_ref=1 me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=1 8x8dct=1 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1 chroma_qp_offset=-2 threads=1 sliced_threads=0 nr=0 decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=3 b_pyramid=2 b_adapt=1 b_bias=0 direct=1 weightb=1 open_gop=0 weightp=2 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40 intra_refresh=0 rc_lookahead=40 rc=crf mbtree=1 crf=23.0 qcomp=0.60 qpmin=0 qpmax=69 qpstep=4 ip_ratio=1.40 aq=1:1.00
  
      Output #0, mp4, to 'output.mp4' :
  
        Metadata :
  
          major_brand : mp42
  
          minor_version : 0
  
          compatible_brands : mp423gp4isom
  
          creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
          encoder : Lavf52.111.0
  
          Stream #0.0(und) : Video : libx264, yuv420p, 640x480 [PAR 1:1 DAR 4:3], q=2-31, 200 kb/s, 30k tbn, 30k tbc
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
          Stream #0.1(und) : Audio : libfaac, 48000 Hz, mono, s16, 64 kb/s
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
      Stream mapping :
  
        Stream #0.0 -> #0.0
  
        Stream #0.1 -> #0.1
  
      Press [q] to stop, [?] for help
  
      frame=542630 fps=132 q=33.0 Lsize=   77226kB time=00:00:18.08 bitrate=34976.2kbits/s dup=542358 drop=0
  
      video:68604kB audio:143kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead 12.333275%
  
      frame I:2174  Avg QP:18.72  size : 25040
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] frame P:136846 Avg QP:25.27  size :    56
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] frame B:403610 Avg QP:32.99  size :    20
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] consecutive B-frames :  0.8%  0.0%  0.1% 99.1%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] mb I  I16..4 :  5.5% 83.3% 11.1%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] mb P  I16..4 :  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  P16..4 :  0.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%    skip:99.4%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] mb B  I16..4 :  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  B16..8 :  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  direct : 0.0%  skip:100.0%  L0:21.2% L1:78.8% BI : 0.0%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] 8x8 transform intra:83.1% inter:85.2%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra : 91.2% 95.8% 80.7% inter : 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] i16 v,h,dc,p : 13% 40% 12% 35%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu : 19% 34% 15%  4%  4%  5%  6%  7%  8%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu : 20% 38%  6%  4%  6%  6%  8%  6%  6%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] i8c dc,h,v,p : 39% 32% 19% 10%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] Weighted P-Frames : Y:0.0% UV:0.0%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] ref P L0 : 91.5%  5.2%  2.8%  0.4%  0.0%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] ref B L0 : 55.7% 43.5%  0.8%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] ref B L1 : 97.9%  2.1%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x20efde0] kb/s:31071.04
  

  The ffmpeg command and output with the -r 24 option :

      ffmpeg -i '/tmp/standort_aquarium.mp4' -r 30000/1001 -vcodec libx264 output.mp4
  
      ffmpeg version 0.7.15, Copyright (c) 2000-2013 the FFmpeg developers
  
        built on Feb 22 2013 07:18:58 with gcc 4.4.5
  
        configuration : —enable-libdc1394 —prefix=/usr —extra-cflags='-Wall -g ' —cc='ccache cc' —enable-shared —enable-libmp3lame —enable-gpl —enable-libvorbis —enable-pthreads —enable-libfaac —enable-libxvid —enable-postproc —enable-x11grab —enable-libgsm —enable-libtheora —enable-libopencore-amrnb —enable-libopencore-amrwb —enable-libx264 —enable-libspeex —enable-nonfree —disable-stripping —enable-avfilter —enable-libdirac —disable-decoder=libdirac —enable-libfreetype —enable-libschroedinger —disable-encoder=libschroedinger —enable-version3 —enable-libopenjpeg —enable-libvpx —enable-librtmp —extra-libs=-lgcrypt —disable-altivec —disable-armv5te —disable-armv6 —disable-vis
  
        libavutil    50. 43. 0 / 50. 43. 0
  
        libavcodec   52.123. 0 / 52.123. 0
  
        libavformat  52.111. 0 / 52.111. 0
  
        libavdevice  52.  5. 0 / 52.  5. 0
  
        libavfilter   1. 80. 0 /  1. 80. 0
  
        libswscale    0. 14. 1 /  0. 14. 1
  
        libpostproc  51.  2. 0 / 51.  2. 0
  
      Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from '/tmp/standort_aquarium.mp4' :
  
        Metadata :
  
          major_brand : mp42
  
          minor_version : 0
  
          compatible_brands : mp423gp4isom
  
          creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
        Duration : 00:00:18.24, start : 0.000000, bitrate : 2095 kb/s
  
          Stream #0.0(und) : Video : mpeg4, yuv420p, 640x480 [PAR 1:1 DAR 4:3], 2001 kb/s, 14.97 fps, 30k tbr, 30k tbn, 30k tbc
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
          Stream #0.1(und) : Audio : aac, 48000 Hz, mono, s16, 96 kb/s
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
      File 'output.mp4' already exists. Overwrite ? [y/N] y
  
      [buffer @ 0x132e820] w:640 h:480 pixfmt:yuv420p tb:1/1000000 sar:1/1 sws_param :
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] Default settings detected, using medium profile
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] using SAR=1/1
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] using cpu capabilities : MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 FastShuffle SSE4.2
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] profile High, level 3.0
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] 264 - core 118 - H.264/MPEG-4 AVC codec - Copyleft 2003-2011 - http://www.videolan.org/x264.html - options : cabac=1 ref=3 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x3:0x113 me=hex subme=7 psy=1 psy_rd=1.00:0.00 mixed_ref=1 me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=1 8x8dct=1 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1 chroma_qp_offset=-2 threads=1 sliced_threads=0 nr=0 decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=3 b_pyramid=2 b_adapt=1 b_bias=0 direct=1 weightb=1 open_gop=0 weightp=2 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40 intra_refresh=0 rc_lookahead=40 rc=crf mbtree=1 crf=23.0 qcomp=0.60 qpmin=0 qpmax=69 qpstep=4 ip_ratio=1.40 aq=1:1.00
  
      Output #0, mp4, to 'output.mp4' :
  
        Metadata :
  
          major_brand : mp42
  
          minor_version : 0
  
          compatible_brands : mp423gp4isom
  
          creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
          encoder : Lavf52.111.0
  
          Stream #0.0(und) : Video : libx264, yuv420p, 640x480 [PAR 1:1 DAR 4:3], q=2-31, 200 kb/s, 30k tbn, 29.97 tbc
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
          Stream #0.1(und) : Audio : libfaac, 48000 Hz, mono, s16, 64 kb/s
  
          Metadata :
  
            creation_time : 2013-04-19 15:04:05
  
      Stream mapping :
  
        Stream #0.0 -> #0.0
  
        Stream #0.1 -> #0.1
  
      Press [q] to stop, [?] for help
  
      frame=  542 fps= 36 q=29.0 Lsize=    2059kB time=00:00:18.01 bitrate= 936.3kbits/s dup=270 drop=0
  
      video:1904kB audio:143kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead 0.609224%
  
      frame I:3     Avg QP:22.39  size : 14773
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] frame P:514   Avg QP:23.98  size :  3675
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] frame B:25    Avg QP:27.44  size :   643
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] consecutive B-frames : 93.7%  0.0%  1.1%  5.2%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] mb I  I16..4 : 16.4% 78.3%  5.3%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] mb P  I16..4 :  1.6%  6.3%  0.3%  P16..4 : 30.8%  8.6%  3.1%  0.0%  0.0%    skip:49.4%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] mb B  I16..4 :  0.4%  0.7%  0.0%  B16..8 : 13.2%  1.6%  0.2%  direct : 0.3%  skip:83.6%  L0:50.0% L1:47.1% BI : 2.9%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] 8x8 transform intra:77.1% inter:83.1%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra : 62.0% 76.4% 24.4% inter : 17.9% 26.3% 2.3%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] i16 v,h,dc,p : 14% 60% 13% 13%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu : 15% 35% 33%  2%  3%  3%  3%  3%  4%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu : 15% 40% 12%  4%  7%  7%  7%  5%  4%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] i8c dc,h,v,p : 46% 34% 16%  4%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] Weighted P-Frames : Y:8.0% UV:4.5%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] ref P L0 : 65.6% 16.7%  8.8%  7.9%  0.9%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] ref B L0 : 85.9% 13.3%  0.8%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] ref B L1 : 88.7% 11.3%
  
      [libx264 @ 0x1325de0] kb/s:862.28
  

  The video source is temporarily available under : https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xg147z77u40g87/standort_aquarium.mp4