Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (9046)

• CD-R Read Speed Experiments

  21 mai 2011, par Multimedia Mike — Science Projects, Sega Dreamcast

  I want to know how fast I can really read data from a CD-R. Pursuant to my previous musings on this subject, I was informed that it is inadequate to profile reading just any file from a CD-R since data might be read faster or slower depending on whether the data is closer to the inside or the outside of the disc.

  Conclusion / Executive Summary
  It is 100% true that reading data from the outside of a CD-R is faster than reading data from the inside. Read on if you care to know the details of how I arrived at this conclusion, and to find out just how much speed advantage there is to reading from the outside rather than the inside.

  Science Project Outline

  • Create some sample CD-Rs with various properties
  • Get a variety of optical drives
  • Write a custom program that profiles the read speed

  Creating The Test Media
  It’s my understanding that not all CD-Rs are created equal. Fortunately, I have 3 spindles of media handy : Some plain-looking Memorex discs, some rather flamboyant Maxell discs, and those 80mm TDK discs :

  
  
  

  My approach for burning is to create a single file to be burned into a standard ISO-9660 filesystem. The size of the file will be the advertised length of the CD-R minus 1 megabyte for overhead— so, 699 MB for the 120mm discs, 209 MB for the 80mm disc. The file will contain a repeating sequence of 0..0xFF bytes.

  Profiling
  I don’t want to leave this to the vagaries of any filesystem handling layer so I will conduct this experiment at the sector level. Profiling program outline :

  • Read the CD-ROM TOC and get the number of sectors that comprise the data track
  • Profile reading the first 20 MB of sectors
  • Profile reading 20 MB of sectors in the middle of the track
  • Profile reading the last 20 MB of sectors

  Unfortunately, I couldn’t figure out the raw sector reading on modern Linux incarnations (which is annoying since I remember it being pretty straightforward years ago). So I left it to the filesystem after all. New algorithm :

  • Open the single, large file on the CD-R and query the file length
  • Profile reading the first 20 MB of data, 512 kbytes at a time
  • Profile reading 20 MB of sectors in the middle of the track (starting from filesize / 2 - 10 MB), 512 kbytes at a time
  • Profile reading the last 20 MB of sectors (starting from filesize - 20MB), 512 kbytes at a time

  Empirical Data
  I tested the program in Linux using an LG Slim external multi-drive (seen at the top of the pile in this post) and one of my Sega Dreamcast units. I gathered the median value of 3 runs for each area (inner, middle, and outer). I also conducted a buffer flush in between Linux runs (as root : 'sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches').

  LG Slim external multi-drive (reading from inner, middle, and outer areas in kbytes/sec) :

  • TDK-80mm : 721, 897, 1048
  • Memorex-120mm : 1601, 2805, 3623
  • Maxell-120mm : 1660, 2806, 3624

  So the 120mm discs can range from about 10.5X all the way up to a full 24X on this drive. For whatever reason, the 80mm disc fares a bit worse — even at the inner track — with a range of 4.8X - 7X.

  Sega Dreamcast (reading from inner, middle, and outer areas in kbytes/sec) :

  • TDK-80mm : 502, 632, 749
  • Memorex-120mm : 499, 889, 1143
  • Maxell-120mm : 500, 890, 1156

  It’s interesting that the 80mm disc performed comparably to the 120mm discs in the Dreamcast, in contrast to the LG Slim drive. Also, the results are consistent with my previous profiling experiments, which largely only touched the inner area. The read speeds range from 3.3X - 7.7X. The middle of a 120mm disc reads at about 6X.

  Implications
  A few thoughts regarding these results :

  • Since the very definition of 1X is the minimum speed necessary to stream data from an audio CD, then presumably, original 1X CD-ROM drives would have needed to be capable of reading 1X from the inner area. I wonder what the max read speed at the outer edges was ? It’s unlikely I would be able to get a 1X drive working easily in this day and age since the earliest CD-ROM drives required custom controllers.
  • I think 24X is the max rated read speed for CD-Rs, at least for this drive. This implies that the marketing literature only cites the best possible numbers. I guess this is no surprise, similar to how monitors and TVs have always been measured by their diagonal dimension.
  • Given this data, how do you engineer an ISO-9660 filesystem image so that the timing-sensitive multimedia files live on the outermost track ? In the Dreamcast case, if you can guarantee your FMV files will live somewhere between the middle and the end of the disc, you should be able to count on a bitrate of at least 900 kbytes/sec.

  Source Code
  Here is the program I wrote for profiling. Note that the filename is hardcoded (#define FILENAME). Compiling for Linux is a simple 'gcc -Wall profile-cdr.c -o profile-cdr'. Compiling for Dreamcast is performed in the standard KallistiOS manner (people skilled in the art already know what they need to know) ; the only variation is to compile with the '-D_arch_dreamcast' flag, which the default KOS environment adds anyway.

  PLAIN TEXT

  C :

  1. #ifdef _arch_dreamcast
  2.   #include <kos .h>
  3.  
  4.   /* map I/O functions to their KOS equivalents */
  5.   #define open fs_open
  6.   #define lseek fs_seek
  7.   #define read fs_read
  8.   #define close fs_close
  9.  
  10.   #define FILENAME "/cd/bigfile"
  11. #else
  12.   #include <stdio .h>
  13.   #include <sys /types.h>
  14.   #include </sys><sys /stat.h>
  15.   #include </sys><sys /time.h>
  16.   #include <fcntl .h>
  17.   #include <unistd .h>
  18.  
  19.   #define FILENAME "/media/Full disc/bigfile"
  20. #endif
  21.  
  22. /* Get a current absolute millisecond count ; it doesn’t have to be in
  23. * reference to anything special. */
  24. unsigned int get_current_milliseconds()
  25. {
  26. #ifdef _arch_dreamcast
  27.   return timer_ms_gettime64() ;
  28. #else
  29.   struct timeval tv ;
  30.   gettimeofday(&tv, NULL) ;
  31.   return tv.tv_sec * 1000 + tv.tv_usec / 1000 ;
  32. #endif
  33. }
  34.  
  35. #define READ_SIZE (20 * 1024 * 1024)
  36. #define READ_BUFFER_SIZE (512 * 1024)
  37.  
  38. int main()
  39. {
  40.   int i, j ;
  41.   int fd ;
  42.   char read_buffer[READ_BUFFER_SIZE] ;
  43.   off_t filesize ;
  44.   unsigned int start_time, end_time ;
  45.  
  46.   fd = open(FILENAME, O_RDONLY) ;
  47.   if (fd == -1)
  48.   {
  49.     printf("could not open %s\n", FILENAME) ;
  50.     return 1 ;
  51.   }
  52.   filesize = lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END) ;
  53.  
  54.   for (i = 0 ; i <3 ; i++)
  55.   {
  56.     if (i == 0)
  57.     {
  58.       printf("reading inner 20 MB...\n") ;
  59.       lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) ;
  60.     }
  61.     else if (i == 1)
  62.     {
  63.       printf("reading middle 20 MB...\n") ;
  64.       lseek(fd, (filesize / 2) - (READ_SIZE / 2), SEEK_SET) ;
  65.     }
  66.     else
  67.     {
  68.       printf("reading outer 20 MB...\n") ;
  69.       lseek(fd, filesize - READ_SIZE, SEEK_SET) ;
  70.     }
  71.     /* read 20 MB ; 40 chunks of 1/2 MB */
  72.     start_time = get_current_milliseconds() ;
  73.     for (j = 0 ; j <(READ_SIZE / READ_BUFFER_SIZE) ; j++)
  74.       if (read(fd, read_buffer, READ_BUFFER_SIZE) != READ_BUFFER_SIZE)
  75.       {
  76.         printf("read error\n") ;
  77.         break ;
  78.       }
  79.     end_time = get_current_milliseconds() ;
  80.     printf("%d - %d = %d ms => %d kbytes/sec\n",
  81.       end_time, start_time, end_time - start_time,
  82.       READ_SIZE / (end_time - start_time)) ;
  83.   }
  84.  
  85.   close(fd) ;
  86.  
  87.   return 0 ;
  88. }

• ffpmeg vs ffprobe performance

  13 décembre 2016, par Thomas

  I wanted to try extracting frames at scene changes with ffmpeg, vs. getting the frame numbers with ffprobe and extracting them later.

  But I had a surprise : ffprobe seems to be much slower than ffmpeg, while ffmpeg is taking the frames, resizing and saving them as well.

  ffmpeg command line :

  ffmpeg -hide_banner -y -i d:/test/m/long.mkv -vf "select=gt(scene\,0.4), showinfo, scale=320:-1, tile=12x200" -vsync 0 thumbnails%03d.png

  this takes : 488 seconds

  ffprobe command line :

  ffprobe -show_frames -of compact=p=0 -f lavfi "movie=/test/m/long.mkv,select=gt(scene\,.4)"

  this takes : 899 seconds

  I am missing something ?

• Stop doing this in your encoder comparisons

  14 juin 2010, par Dark Shikari — Uncategorized

  I’ll do a more detailed post later on how to properly compare encoders, but lately I’ve seen a lot of people doing something in particular that demonstrates they have no idea what they’re doing.

  PSNR is not a very good metric. But it’s useful for one thing : if every encoder optimizes for it, you can effectively measure how good those encoders are at optimizing for PSNR. Certainly this doesn’t tell you everything you want to know, but it can give you a good approximation of “how good the encoder is at optimizing for SOMETHING“. The hope is that this is decently close to the visual results. This of course can fail to be the case if one encoder has psy optimizations and the other does not.

  But it only works to begin with if both encoders are optimized for PSNR. If one optimizes for, say, SSIM, and one optimizes for PSNR, comparing PSNR numbers is completely meaningless. If anything, it’s worse than meaningless — it will bias enormously towards the encoder that is tuned towards PSNR, for obvious reasons.

  And yet people keep doing this.

  They keep comparing x264 against other encoders which are tuned against PSNR. But they don’t tell x264 to also tune for PSNR (–tune psnr, it’s not hard !), and surprise surprise, x264 loses. Of course, these people never bother to actually look at the output ; if they did, they’d notice that x264 usually looks quite a bit better despite having lower PSNR.

  This happens so often that I suspect this is largely being done intentionally in order to cheat in encoder comparisons. Or perhaps it’s because tons of people who know absolutely nothing about video coding insist on doing comparisons without checking their methodology. Whatever it is, it clearly demonstrates that the person doing the test doesn’t understand what PSNR is or why it is used.

  Another victim of this is Theora Ptalarbvorm, which optimizes for SSIM at the expense of PSNR — an absolutely great decision for visual quality. And of course if you just blindly compare Ptalarbvorm (1.2) and Thusnelda (1.1), you’ll notice Ptalarbvorm has much lower PSNR ! Clearly, it must be a worse encoder, right ?

  Stop doing this. And call out the people who insist on cheating.