Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (12883)

• 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.

• 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.

• How to cheat on video encoder comparisons

  21 juin 2010, par Dark Shikari — benchmark, H.264, stupidity, test sequences

  Over the past few years, practically everyone and their dog has published some sort of encoder comparison. Sometimes they’re actually intended to be something for the world to rely on, like the old Doom9 comparisons and the MSU comparisons. Other times, they’re just to scratch an itch — someone wants to decide for themselves what is better. And sometimes they’re just there to outright lie in favor of whatever encoder the author likes best. The latter is practically an expected feature on the websites of commercial encoder vendors.

  One thing almost all these comparisons have in common — particularly (but not limited to !) the ones done without consulting experts — is that they are horribly done. They’re usually easy to spot : for example, two videos at totally different bitrates are being compared, or the author complains about one of the videos being “washed out” (i.e. he screwed up his colorspace conversion). Or the results are simply nonsensical. Many of these problems result from the person running the test not “sanity checking” the results to catch mistakes that he made in his test. Others are just outright intentional.

  The result of all these mistakes, both intentional and accidental, is that the results of encoder comparisons tend to be all over the map, to the point of absurdity. For any pair of encoders, it’s practically a given that a comparison exists somewhere that will “prove” any result you want to claim, even if the result would be beyond impossible in any sane situation. This often results in the appearance of a “controversy” even if there isn’t any.

  Keep in mind that every single mistake I mention in this article has actually been done, usually in more than one comparison. And before I offend anyone, keep in mind that when I say “cheating”, I don’t mean to imply that everyone that makes the mistake is doing it intentionally. Especially among amateur comparisons, most of the mistakes are probably honest.

  So, without further ado, we will investigate a wide variety of ways, from the blatant to the subtle, with which you too can cheat on your encoder comparisons.

  Blatant cheating

  1. Screw up your colorspace conversions. A common misconception is that converting from YUV to RGB and back is a simple process where nothing can go wrong. This is quite untrue. There are two primary attributes of YUV : PC range (0-255) vs TV range (16-235) and BT.709 vs BT.601 conversion coefficients. That sums up to a total of 4 possible different types of YUV. When people compare encoders, they often use different frontends, some of which make incorrect assumptions about these attributes.

  Incorrect assumptions are so common that it’s often a matter of luck whether the tool gets it right or not. It doesn’t help that most videos don’t even properly signal which they are to begin with ! Often even the tool that the person running the comparison is using to view the source material gets the conversion wrong.

  Subsampling YUV (aka what everyone uses) adds yet another dimension to the problem : the locations which the chroma data represents (“chroma siting”) isn’t constant. For example, JPEG and MPEG-2 define different positions. This is even worse because almost nobody actually handles this correctly — the best approach is to simply make sure none of your software is doing any conversion. A mistake in chroma siting is what created that infamous PSNR graph showing Theora beating x264, which has been cited for ages since despite the developers themselves retracting it after realizing their mistake.

  Keep in mind that the video encoder is not responsible for colorspace conversion — almost all video encoders operate in the YUV domain (usually subsampled 4:2:0 YUV, aka YV12). Thus any problem in colorspace conversion is usually the fault of the tools used, not the actual encoder.

  How to spot it : “The color is a bit off” or “the contrast of the video is a bit duller”. There were a staggering number of “H.264 vs Theora” encoder comparisons which came out in favor of one or the other solely based on “how well the encoder kept the color” — making the results entirely bogus.

  2. Don’t compare at the same (or nearly the same) bitrate. I saw a VP8 vs x264 comparison the other day that gave VP8 30% more bitrate and then proceeded to demonstrate that it got better PSNR. You would think this is blindingly obvious, but people still make this mistake ! The most common cause of this is assuming that encoders will successfully reach the target bitrate you ask of them — particularly with very broken encoders that don’t. Always check the output filesizes of your encodes.

  How to spot it : The comparison lists perfectly round bitrates for every single test, as opposed to the actual bitrates achieved by the encoders, which will never be exactly matching in any real test.

  3. Use unfair encoding settings. This is a bit of a wide topic : there are many ways to do this. We’ll cover the more blatant ones in this part. Here’s some common ones :

  a. Simply cheat. Intentionally pick awful settings for the encoder you don’t like.

  b. Don’t consider performance. Pick encoding settings without any regard for some particular performance goal. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to say “use the best settings possible, regardless of speed”. It’s also reasonable to look for a particular encoding speed target. But what isn’t reasonable is to pick extremely fast settings for one encoder and extremely slow settings for another encoder.

  c. Don’t attempt match compatibility options when it’s reasonable to do so. Keyframe interval is a classic one of these : shorter values reduce compression but improve seeking. An easy way to cheat is to simply not set them to the same value, biasing towards whatever encoder has the longer interval. This is most common as an accidental mistake with comparisons involving ffmpeg, where the default keyframe interval is an insanely low 12 frames.

  How to spot it : The comparison doesn’t document its approach regarding choice of encoding settings.

  4. Use ratecontrol methods unfairly. Constant bitrate is not the same as average bitrate — using one instead of the other is a great way to completely ruin a comparison. Another method is to use 1-pass bitrate mode for one encoder and 2-pass or constant quality for another. A good general approach is that, for any given encoder, one should use 2-pass if available and constant quality if not (it may take a few runs to get the bitrate you want, of course).

  Of course, it’s also fine to run a comparison with a particular mode in mind — for example, a comparison targeted at streaming applications might want to test using 1-pass CBR. Of course, in such a case, if CBR is not available in an encoder, you can’t compare to that encoder.

  How to spot it : It’s usually pretty obvious if the encoding settings are given.

  5. Use incredibly old versions of encoders. As it happens, Debian stable is not the best source for the most recent encoding software. Equally, using recent versions known to be buggy.

  6. Don’t distinguish between video formats and the software that encodes them. This is incredibly common : I’ve seen tests that claim to compare “H.264″ against something else while in fact actually comparing “Quicktime” against something else. It’s impossible to compare all H.264 encoders at once, so don’t even try — just call the comparison “Quicktime versus X” instead of “H.264 versus X”. Or better yet, use a good H.264 encoder, like x264 and don’t bother testing awful encoders to begin with.

  Less-obvious cheating

  1. Pick a bitrate that’s way too low. Low bitrate testing is very effective at making differences between encoders obvious, particularly if doing a visual comparison. But past a certain point, it becomes impossible for some encoders to keep up. This is usually an artifact of the video format itself — a scalability limitation. Practically all DCT-based formats have this kind of limitation (wavelets are mostly immune).

  In reality, this is rarely a problem, because one could merely downscale the video to resolve the problem — lower resolutions need fewer bits. But people rarely do this in comparisons (it’s hard to do it fairly), so the best approach is to simply not use absurdly low bitrates. What is “absurdly low” ? That’s a hard question — it ends up being a matter of using one’s best judgement.

  This tends to be less of a problem in larger-scale tests that use many different bitrates.

  How to spot it : At least one of the encoders being compared falls apart completely and utterly in the screenshots.

  Biases towards, a lot : Video formats with completely scalable coding methods (Dirac, Snow, JPEG-2000, SVC).

  Biases towards, a little : Video formats with coding methods that improve scalability, such as arithmetic coding, B-frames, and run-length coding. For example, H.264 and Theora tend to be more scalable than MPEG-4.

  2. Pick a bitrate that’s way too high. This is staggeringly common mistake : pick a bitrate so high that all of the resulting encodes look absolutely perfect. The claim is then made that “there’s no significant difference” between any of the encoders tested. This is surprisingly easy to do inadvertently on sources like Big Buck Bunny, which looks transparent at relatively low bitrates. An equally common but similar mistake is to test at a bitrate that isn’t so high that the videos look perfect, but high enough that they all look very good. The claim is then made that “the difference between these encoders is small”. Well, of course, if you give everything tons of bitrate, the difference between encoders is small.

  How to spot it : You can’t tell which image is the source and which is the encode.

  3. Making invalid comparisons using objective metrics. I explained this earlier in the linked blog post, but in short, if you’re going to measure PSNR, make sure all the encoders are optimized for PSNR. Equally, if you’re going to leave the encoder optimized for visual quality, don’t measure PSNR — post screenshots instead. Same with SSIM or any other objective metric. Furthermore, don’t blindly do metric comparisons — always at least look at the output as a sanity test. Finally, do not claim that PSNR is particularly representative of visual quality, because it isn’t.

  How to spot it : Encoders with psy optimizations, such as x264 or Theora 1.2, do considerably worse than expected in PSNR tests, but look much better in visual comparisons.

  4. Lying with graphs. Using misleading scales on graphs is a great way to make the differences between encoders seem larger or smaller than they actually are. A common mistake is to scale SSIM linearly : in fact, 0.99 is about twice as good as 0.98, not 1% better. One solution for this is to use db to compare SSIM values.

  5. Using lossy screenshots. Posting screenshots as JPEG is a silly, pointless way to worsen an encoder comparison.

  Subtle cheating

  1. Unfairly pick screenshots for comparison. Comparing based on stills is not ideal, but it’s often vastly easier than comparing videos in motion. But it also opens up the door to unfairness. One of the most common mistakes is to pick a frame immediately after (or on) a keyframe for one encoder, but which isn’t for the other encoder. Particularly in the case of encoders that massively boost keyframe quality, this will unfairly bias in favor of the one with the recent keyframe.

  How to spot it : It’s very difficult to tell, if not impossible, unless they provide the video files to inspect.

  2. Cherry-pick source videos. Good source videos are incredibly hard to come by — almost everything is already compressed and what’s left is usually a very poor example of real content. Here’s some common ways to bias unfairly using cherry-picking :

  a. Pick source videos that are already heavily compressed. Pre-compressed source isn’t much of an issue if your target quality level for testing is much lower than that of the source, since any compression artifacts in the source will be a lot smaller than those created by the encoders. But if the source is already very compressed, or you’re testing at a relatively high quality level, this becomes a significant issue.

  Biases towards : Anything that uses a similar transform to the source content. For MPEG-2 source material, this biases towards formats that use the 8x8dct or a very close approximation : MPEG-1/2/4, H.263, and Theora. For H.264 source material, this biases towards formats that use a 4×4 transform : H.264 and VP8.

  b. Pick standard test clips that were not intended for this purpose. There are a wide variety of uncompressed “standard test clips“. Some of these are not intended for general-purpose use, but rather exist to test specific encoder capabilities. For example, Mobile Calendar (“mobcal”) is extremely sharp and low motion, serving to test interpolation capabilities. It will bias incredibly heavily towards whatever encoder uses more B-frames and/or has higher-precision motion compensation. Other test clips are almost completely static, such as the classic “akiyo”. These are also not particularly representative of real content.

  c. Pick very noisy content. Noise is — by definition — not particularly compressible. Both in terms of PSNR and visual quality, a very noisy test clip will tend to reduce the differences between encoders dramatically.

  d. Pick a test clip to exercise a specific encoder feature. I’ve often used short clips from Touhou games to demonstrate the effectiveness of x264′s macroblock-tree algorithm. I’ve sometimes even used it to compare to other encoders as part of such a demonstration. I’ve also used the standard test clip “parkrun” as a demonstration of adaptive quantization. But claiming that either is representative of most real content — and thus can be used as a general determinant of how good encoders are — is of course insane.

  e. Simply encode a bunch of videos and pick the one your favorite encoder does best on.

  3. Preprocessing the source. A encoder test is a test of encoders, not preprocessing. Some encoding apps may add preprocessors to the source, such as noise reduction. This may make the video look better — possibly even better than the source — but it’s not a fair part of comparing the actual encoders.

  4. Screw up decoding. People often forget that in addition to encoding, a test also involves decoding — a step which is equally possible to do wrong. One common error caused by this is in tests of Theora on content whose resolution isn’t divisible by 16. Decoding is often done with ffmpeg — which doesn’t crop the edges properly in some cases. This isn’t really a big deal visually, but in a PSNR comparison, misaligning the entire frame by 4 or 8 pixels is a great way of completely invalidating the results.

  The greatest mistake of all

  Above all, the biggest and most common mistake — and the one that leads to many of the problems mentioned here – is the mistaken belief that one, or even a few tests can really represent all usage fairly. Any comparison has to have some specific goal — to compare something in some particular case, whether it be “maximum offline compression ignoring encoding speed” or “real-time high-speed video streaming” or whatnot. And even then, no comparison can represent all use-cases in that category alone. An encoder comparison can only be honest if it’s aware of its limitations.