Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (5946)

• Different filesizes for images generated using octave and python

  17 décembre 2020, par lakshayg

  I am using python (scikit-image) and octave to generate 200 images as follows

  


  Python3

  


  import numpy as np
from skimage.io import imsave

images = [255*np.ones((100,100), dtype=np.uint8),  # white
             np.zeros((100,100), dtype=np.uint8)]  # black

for i in range(200): # save alternating black and white images
    imsave('%04d.png'%(i+1), images[i%2])


  


  Octave

  


  pkg load image;

im1 = 255*ones(100,100); # white
im2 = zeros(100,100);    # black
for i=1:200
    name = sprintf('%04d.png', i);
    if mod(i,2) == 0
        imwrite(im1, name);
    else
        imwrite(im2, name);
    end
end


  


  Next, I use ffmpeg to generate two videos (alternating white and black frames) from these two sets of images using the following command

  


  ffmpeg -r 10 -loglevel quiet \
       -i ./%04d.png -c:v libx264 \
       -preset ultrafast -crf 0 ./out.mkv


  


  

  1. Sizes of image files generated by both these codes are different.

  


  


  

  • Octave white : 192 bytes, black : 98 bytes

  


  • Python white : 120 bytes, black : 90 bytes

  


  


  

  2. Sizes of video files generated from these octave and python images are significantly different from each other.

  


  


  

  • Octave filesize : 60 kilobytes

  


  • Python filesize : 116 kilobytes

  


  


  Why do we have this apparently very strange behavior ?

  


  EDIT

  


  Since it was suggested that the behavior might be due to octave and python using different bit-depths to store the images, I changed the octave code to use 8 bit numbers

  


  im1 = uint8(255*ones(100,100)); # white
im2 = uint8(zeros(100,100));    # black


  


  and now the image file sizes are nearly the same

  


  

  • Octave white : 118 bytes, black : 90 bytes

  


  • Python white : 120 bytes, black : 90 bytes

  


  


  but the problem is still the same for video files, octave : 60K, python : 116K

  


• Lossless Video Compression formats

  26 novembre 2019, par jippyjoe4

  I create lots of 4K 60fps 3D animations, and every frame of these animations are exported as separate PNG files to my disk drive. These PNG files use their own lossless compression method, but the file sizes are still quite large (a 30 second animation can take anywhere between 4 and 18 GB). I’m interested in alternative lossless compression formats to reduce the file sizes even further.

  The reason I’m interested in lossless compression is because I create a LARGE variety of animations, and lossy algorithms are not always consistent in terms of visual fidelity (what doesn’t create visible artifacts for one animation might for another).

  Do you have good recommendations for general purpose lossless video codecs that can achieve superior performance to storing the PNG frames individually ?

  So far, I have attempted to use h.265 lossless using ffmpeg :

  ffmpeg -r 60 -i out%04d.png -c:v libx265 -preset ultrafast -x265-params lossless=1 OUTPUT.mp4

  But the result was a 15.4GB file when the original PNG files themselves only took up 5.77 GB in total. I assume this was because, for this particular animation, interframe compression was far worse than intraframe compression, but I don’t really know.

  I understand that this is highly dependent on the content I’m attempting to compress, but I’m just hoping that I can find something that’s better than storing the frames individually.

• Anomalie #3410 : Mauvaise formation de requête SQL dans fonction spip_pg_groupby

  26 février 2016, par b b

  Je repasse le ticket en mode "normal", je ne sais pas si quelqu’un aura le courage de s’occuper de PG (qui n’est plus disponible par défaut en 3.1).