By: Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org), November 18, 2020 5:36 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 18, 2020 2:57 pm wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 18, 2020 12:03 pm wrote:
> > Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 18, 2020 11:25 am wrote:
> > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 18, 2020 11:03 am wrote:
> > > > Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 18, 2020 9:21 am wrote:
> > > > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 18, 2020 9:13 am wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > x264 in SPEC is not there to help you decide which PC to buy for ripping DVD content!
> > > > > > It is there as an exemplar of certain styles of code: various generic compression techniques
> > > > > > (so lots of bit by bit manipulation) and various image analysis techniques (so searches
> > > > > > over images and image comparisons at various frequency granularities).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't read it? If x264 is example of a kind of code, it is an example of code
> > > > > heavily optimised with multimedia (integer) SIMD. It's a greeat example or maybe
> > > > > too great, other codebases like ffmpeg or x265 will be a bit less optimized.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to explore such code, run it with assembly. It has assembly for ARM too, and not that
> > > > > little of it. Without SIMD, it is the opposite of example of multimedia compression code.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Various generic compression techniques", my butt. This is an area I
> > > > > know, so please don't talk armchair nonsense like you did just now.
> > > >
> > > > Armchair nonsense? OK then. I guess you don't know my employment history...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny you say that because I do know. Was it Quicktime or do I have
> > > different person? I wondered if you'll bring it up, because...
> > >
> > > Quicktime in fact has been the laughingstock of AVC encoding pretty much during the
> > > whole era H.264 mattered (by that I mean say 2007-2012, if Quicktime's software got
> > > better after that, sorry). But hey, at least it was able to beat Theora in quality.
> > > Or I think it was, but the encoding test results were not pretty to put it mildly.
> > >
> > > For that matter, even QT's AVC decoding was plain horrible (basic features not decoding properly,
> > > performance was meh too, at least on x86/x64), lol. And decoder is the easy thing.
> > >
> > > The software might have been better in all the other things
> > > it does and it's AAC encoder is very nice if not best.
> > > But it's AVC encodeing was PoS without any hyperbole. So if you
> > > want to raise it as a proof you know this stuff, then AHUM AHUM.
> >
> > I left Apple in 2002, so blame other people if you're upset about 2007 to 2012.
> >
> > But the time that I *WAS* at Apple was precisely the years when codec design (audio, video, stills)
> > was in constant flux, with new ideas every year. What mattered for someone investigating new
> > codec design was not "how well does this CPU implement something that should properly be stuck
> > in an ASIC", it was exactly the SPEC result -- how well does this CPU handle quick and dirty
> > encoder/decoder type code that we're constantly modifying as we consider new ideas.
> >
>
> Okay, and that is completely relevant as to the question we had, that is whether
> video encoders require hand written assembly to be practical, is it not?
No. What I referred to is why x264 (as written the way it is written) is a useful member of the SPEC suite.
To quote myself
"
x264 in SPEC is not there to help you decide which PC to buy for ripping DVD content!
It is there as an exemplar of certain styles of code: various generic compression techniques (so lots of bit by bit manipulation) and various image analysis techniques (so searches over images and image comparisons at various frequency granularities).
"
You are the one who, against repeated advice from others, keeps insisting that x264 in SPEC is supposedly there so that people can decide what computer to buy to run Handbrake.
If you want to argue about what you believe to be the best way to write a codec, go ahead; but that's not the issue to which I was replying.
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 18, 2020 12:03 pm wrote:
> > Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 18, 2020 11:25 am wrote:
> > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 18, 2020 11:03 am wrote:
> > > > Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 18, 2020 9:21 am wrote:
> > > > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 18, 2020 9:13 am wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > x264 in SPEC is not there to help you decide which PC to buy for ripping DVD content!
> > > > > > It is there as an exemplar of certain styles of code: various generic compression techniques
> > > > > > (so lots of bit by bit manipulation) and various image analysis techniques (so searches
> > > > > > over images and image comparisons at various frequency granularities).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't read it? If x264 is example of a kind of code, it is an example of code
> > > > > heavily optimised with multimedia (integer) SIMD. It's a greeat example or maybe
> > > > > too great, other codebases like ffmpeg or x265 will be a bit less optimized.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to explore such code, run it with assembly. It has assembly for ARM too, and not that
> > > > > little of it. Without SIMD, it is the opposite of example of multimedia compression code.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Various generic compression techniques", my butt. This is an area I
> > > > > know, so please don't talk armchair nonsense like you did just now.
> > > >
> > > > Armchair nonsense? OK then. I guess you don't know my employment history...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny you say that because I do know. Was it Quicktime or do I have
> > > different person? I wondered if you'll bring it up, because...
> > >
> > > Quicktime in fact has been the laughingstock of AVC encoding pretty much during the
> > > whole era H.264 mattered (by that I mean say 2007-2012, if Quicktime's software got
> > > better after that, sorry). But hey, at least it was able to beat Theora in quality.
> > > Or I think it was, but the encoding test results were not pretty to put it mildly.
> > >
> > > For that matter, even QT's AVC decoding was plain horrible (basic features not decoding properly,
> > > performance was meh too, at least on x86/x64), lol. And decoder is the easy thing.
> > >
> > > The software might have been better in all the other things
> > > it does and it's AAC encoder is very nice if not best.
> > > But it's AVC encodeing was PoS without any hyperbole. So if you
> > > want to raise it as a proof you know this stuff, then AHUM AHUM.
> >
> > I left Apple in 2002, so blame other people if you're upset about 2007 to 2012.
> >
> > But the time that I *WAS* at Apple was precisely the years when codec design (audio, video, stills)
> > was in constant flux, with new ideas every year. What mattered for someone investigating new
> > codec design was not "how well does this CPU implement something that should properly be stuck
> > in an ASIC", it was exactly the SPEC result -- how well does this CPU handle quick and dirty
> > encoder/decoder type code that we're constantly modifying as we consider new ideas.
> >
>
> Okay, and that is completely relevant as to the question we had, that is whether
> video encoders require hand written assembly to be practical, is it not?
No. What I referred to is why x264 (as written the way it is written) is a useful member of the SPEC suite.
To quote myself
"
x264 in SPEC is not there to help you decide which PC to buy for ripping DVD content!
It is there as an exemplar of certain styles of code: various generic compression techniques (so lots of bit by bit manipulation) and various image analysis techniques (so searches over images and image comparisons at various frequency granularities).
"
You are the one who, against repeated advice from others, keeps insisting that x264 in SPEC is supposedly there so that people can decide what computer to buy to run Handbrake.
If you want to argue about what you believe to be the best way to write a codec, go ahead; but that's not the issue to which I was replying.