
Recherche avancée
Autres articles (33)
-
Publier sur MédiaSpip
13 juin 2013Puis-je poster des contenus à partir d’une tablette Ipad ?
Oui, si votre Médiaspip installé est à la version 0.2 ou supérieure. Contacter au besoin l’administrateur de votre MédiaSpip pour le savoir -
L’espace de configuration de MediaSPIP
29 novembre 2010, parL’espace de configuration de MediaSPIP est réservé aux administrateurs. Un lien de menu "administrer" est généralement affiché en haut de la page [1].
Il permet de configurer finement votre site.
La navigation de cet espace de configuration est divisé en trois parties : la configuration générale du site qui permet notamment de modifier : les informations principales concernant le site (...) -
Taille des images et des logos définissables
9 février 2011, parDans beaucoup d’endroits du site, logos et images sont redimensionnées pour correspondre aux emplacements définis par les thèmes. L’ensemble des ces tailles pouvant changer d’un thème à un autre peuvent être définies directement dans le thème et éviter ainsi à l’utilisateur de devoir les configurer manuellement après avoir changé l’apparence de son site.
Ces tailles d’images sont également disponibles dans la configuration spécifique de MediaSPIP Core. La taille maximale du logo du site en pixels, on permet (...)
Sur d’autres sites (4890)
-
Opera 10.60 Released with WebM Support
7 juillet 2010, par noreply@blogger.com (John Luther)Congratulations to everyone at Opera Software for releasing version 10.60 of their browser, which supports WebM video playback. Downloads for Windows, Mac OS and Linux are available on the Opera download page.
-
A nice comparison of mics
3 juin 2010DVEStore has done a great comparison of different types of microphones on video. Audio is a black art, and folks rarely put in the time to do A/B/C comparisons. We tend to just default to a set of mics that we’ve decided are "good enough" and then don’t go back to reevaluate.
-
Fighting with the VP8 Spec
4 juin 2010, par Multimedia Mike — VP8As stated in a previous blog post on the matter, FFmpeg’s policy is to reimplement codecs rather than adopt other codebases wholesale. And so it is with Google’s recently open sourced VP8 codec, the video portion of their Webm initiative. I happen to know that the new FFmpeg implementation is in the capable hands of several of my co-developers so I’m not even worrying about that angle.
Instead, I thought of another of my characteristically useless exercises : Create an independent VP8 decoder implementation entirely in pure Python. Silly ? Perhaps. But it has one very practical application : By attempting to write a new decoder based on the official bitstream documentation, this could serve as a mechanism for validating said spec, something near and dear to my heart.
What is the current state of the spec ? Let me reiterate that I’m glad it exists. As I stated during the initial open sourcing event, everything that Google produced for the initial event went well beyond my wildest expectations. Having said that, the documentation does fall short in a number of places. Fortunately, I am on the Webm mailing lists and am sending in corrections and ideas for general improvement. For the most part, I have been able to understand the general ideas behind the decoding flow based on the spec and am even able to implement certain pieces correctly. Then I usually instrument the libvpx source code with output statements in order to validate that I’m doing everything right.
Token Blocker
Unfortunately, I’m quite blocked right now on the chapter regarding token/DCT coefficient decoding (chapter 13 in the current document iteration). In his seminal critique of the codec, Dark Shikari complained that large segments of the spec are just C code fragments copy and pasted from the official production decoder. As annoying as that is, the biggest insult comes at the end of section 13.3 :While we have in fact completely described the coefficient decoding procedure, the reader will probably find it helpful to consult the reference implementation, which can be found in the file detokenize.c.
The reader most certainly will not find it helpful to consult the file detokenize.c. The file in question implements the coefficient residual decoding with an unholy sequence of C macros that contain goto statements. Honestly, I thought I did understand the coefficient decoding procedure based on the spec’s description. But my numbers don’t match up with the official decoder. Instrumenting or tracing macro’d code is obviously painful and studying the same code is making me think I don’t understand the procedure after all. To be fair, entropy decoding often occupies a lot of CPU time for many video decoders and I have little doubt that the macro/goto approach is much faster than clearer, more readable methods. It’s just highly inappropriate to refer to it for pedagogical purposes.
Aside : For comparison, check out the reference implementation for the VC-1 codec. It was written so clearly and naively that the implementors used an O(n) Huffman decoder. That’s commitment to clarity.
I wonder if my FFmpeg cohorts are having better luck with the DCT residue decoding in their new libavcodec implementation ? Maybe if I can get this Python decoder working, it can serve as a more appropriate reference decoder.
Update : Almost immediately after I posted this entry, I figured out a big problem that was holding me back, and then several more small ones, and finally decoded by first correct DCT coefficient from the stream (I’ve never been so happy to see the number -448). I might be back on track now. Even better was realizing that my original understanding of the spec was correct.
Unrelated
I found this image on the Doom9 forums. I ROFL’d :
It’s probably unfair and inaccurate but you have to admit it’s funny. Luckily, quality nitpickings aren’t my department. I’m just interested in getting codecs working, tested, and documented so that more people can use them reliably.