Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (5490)

• Linux Media Player Survey Circa 2001

  2 septembre 2010, par Multimedia Mike — General

  Here’s a document I scavenged from my archives. It was dated September 1, 2001 and I now publish it 9 years later. It serves as sort of a time capsule for the state of media player programs at the time. Looking back on this list, I can’t understand why I couldn’t find MPlayer while I was conducting this survey, especially since MPlayer is the project I eventually started to work for a few months after writing this piece.

  For a little context, I had been studying multimedia concepts and tech for a year and was itching to get my hands dirty with practical multimedia coding. But I wanted to tackle what I perceived as unsolved problems– like playback of proprietary codecs. I didn’t want to have to build a new media playback framework just to start working on my problems. So I surveyed the players available to see which ones I could plug into and use as a testbed for implementing new decoders.

  Regarding Real Player, I wrote : “We’re trying to move away from the proprietary, closed-source “solutions”. Heh. Was I really an insufferable open source idealist back in the day ?

  Anyway, here’s the text with some Where are they now ? commentary [in brackets] :

  ---

  Towards an All-Inclusive Media Playing Solution for Linux

  I don’t feel that the media playing solutions for Linux set their sights high enough, even though they do tend to be quite ambitious.

  I want to create a media player for Linux that can open a file, figure out what type of file it is (AVI, MOV, etc.), determine the compression algorithms used to encode the audio and video chunks inside (MPEG, Cinepak, Sorenson, etc.) and replay the file using the best audio, video, and CPU facilities available on the computer.

  Video and audio playback is a solved problem on Linux ; I don’t wish to solve that problem again. The problem that isn’t solved is reliance on proprietary multimedia solutions through some kind of WINE-like layer in order to decode compressed multimedia files.

  Survey of Linux solutions for decoding proprietary multimedia
  updated 2001-09-01

  AVI Player for XMMS
  This is based on Avifile. All the same advantages and limitations apply.
  [Top Google hit is a Freshmeat page that doesn’t indicate activity since 2001-2002.]

  Avifile
  This player does a great job at taking apart AVI and ASF files and then feeding the compressed chunks of multimedia data through to the binary Win32 decoders.

  The program is written in C++ and I’m not very good at interpreting that kind of code. But I’m learning all over again. Examining the object hierarchy, it appears that the designers had the foresight to include native support for decoders that are compiled into the program from source code. However, closer examination reveals that there is support for ONE source decoder and that’s the “decoder” for uncompressed data. Still, I tried to manipulate this routine to accept and decode data from other codecs but no dice. It’s really confounding. The program always crashes when I feed non-uncompressed data through the source decoder.
  [Lives at http://avifile.sourceforge.net/ ; not updated since 2006.]

  Real Player
  There’s not much to do with this since it is closed source and proprietary. Even though there is a plugin architecture, that’s not satisfactory. We’re trying to move away from the proprietary, closed-source “solutions”.
  [Still kickin’ with version 11.]

  XAnim
  This is a well-established Unix media player. To his credit, the author does as well as he can with the resources he has. In other words, he supports the non-proprietary video codecs well, and even has support for some proprietary video codecs through binary-only decoders.

  The source code is extremely difficult to work with as the author chose to use the X coding format which I’ve never seen used anywhere else except for X header files. The infrastructure for extending the program and supporting other codecs and file formats is there, I suppose, but I would have to wrap my head around the coding style. Maybe I can learn to work past that. The other thing that bothers me about this program is the decoding approach : It seems that each video decoder includes routines to decompress the multimedia data into every conceivable RGB and YUV output format. This seems backwards to me ; it seems better to have one decoder function that decodes the data into its native format it was compressed from (e.g., YV12 for MPEG data) and then pass that data to another layer of the program that’s in charge of presenting the data and possibly converting it if necessary. This layer would encompass highly-optimized software conversion routines including special CPU-specific instructions (e.g., MMX and SSE) and eliminate the need to place those routines in lots of other routines. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
  [This one was pretty much dead before I made this survey, the most recent update being in 1999. Still, we owe it much respect as the granddaddy of Unix multimedia playback programs.]

  Xine
  This seems like a promising program. It was originally designed to play MPEGs from DVDs. It can also play MPEG files on a hard drive and utilizes the Xv extensions for hardware YUV playback. It’s also supposed to play AVI files using the same technique as Avifile but I have never, ever gotten it to work. If an AVI file has both video and sound, the binary video decoder can’t decode any frames. If the AVI file has video and no sound, the program gets confused and crashes, as far as I can tell.

  Still, it’s promising, and I’ve been trying to work around these crashes. It doesn’t yet have the type of modularization I’d like to see. Right now, it tailored to suit MPEG playback and AVI playback is an afterthought. Still, it appears to have a generalized interface for dropping in new file demultiplexers.

  I tried to extend the program for supporting source decoders by rewriting w32codec.c from scratch. I’m not having a smooth time of it so far. I’m able to perform some manipulations on the output window. However, I can’t get the program to deal with an RGB image format. It has trouble allocating an RGB surface with XvShmCreateImage(). This isn’t suprising, per my limited knowledge of X which is that Xv applies to YUV images, but it could also apply to RGB images as well. Anyway, the program should be able to fall back on regular RGB pixmaps if that Xv call fails.

  Right now, this program is looking the most promising. It will take some work to extend the underlying infrastructure, but it seems doable since I know C quite well and can understand the flow of this program, as opposed to Avifile and its C++. The C code also compiles about 10 times faster.
  [My home project for many years after a brief flirtation with MPlayer. It is still alive ; its latest release was just a month ago.]

  XMovie
  This library is a Quicktime movie player. I haven’t looked at it too extensively yet, but I do remember looking at it at one point and reading the documentation that said it doesn’t support key frames. Still, I should examine it again since they released a new version recently.
  [Heroine Virtual still puts out some software but XMovie has not been updated since 2005.]

  XMPS
  This program compiles for me, but doesn’t do much else. It can play an MP3 file. I have been able to get MPEG movies to play through it, but it refuses to show the full video frame, constricting it to a small window (obviously a bug).
  [This project is hosted on SourceForge and is listed with a registration date of 2003, well after this survey was made. So the project obviously lived elsewhere in 2001. Meanwhile, it doesn’t look like any files ever made it to SF for hosting.]

  XTheater
  I can’t even get this program to compile. It’s supposed to be an MPEG player based on SMPEG. As such, it probably doesn’t hold much promise for being easily extended into a general media player.
  [Last updated in 2002.]

  GMerlin
  I can’t get this to compile yet. I have a bug report in to the dev group.
  [Updated consistently in the last 9 years. Last update was in February of this year. I can’t find any record of my bug report, though.]

• NAB 2010 wrapup

  15 avril 2010

  Another year of NAB has come and gone. Making it out of Vegas with some remaining faith in humanity seems like a successful outcome. So, anything worth talking about at the show ?

  First off, there’s 3d. 3D is The Next Big Thing, and that was obvious to anyone who spent half a second on the show floor. Everything from camera rigs, to post production apps, to display technology was all 3d, all the time. I’m not a huge fan of 3d in most cases, but the industry is at least feigning interest.

  Luckily, at a show as big as NAB, there’s plenty of other cool stuff to see. So, what struck my fancy ?

  First off, Avid and Adobe were showing new versions of Media Composer and Premiere. Both sounded pretty amazing on paper, but I must say I was somewhat underwhelmed by both in reality. Premiere felt a little rough around the edges - the Mercurial Engine wasn’t the sort of next generation tech that I expected. Media Composer 5 has some nice new tweaks, but it’s still rather Avid-y - which is good for Avid people, less interesting for the rest of us.

  In other software news, Blackmagic Design was showing off some of what they’re doing with the DaVinci technology that they acquired. Software-only Da Vinci Resolve for $999 is a pretty amazing deal, and the demos were quite nice. That said, color correction is an art, so just making the technology cheaper isn’t necessarily going to dramatically change the number of folks who do it well - see Color.

  Blackmagic also has a pile of new USB 3.0 hardware devices, including the absolutely gorgeous UltraStudio Pro. Makes me pine for USB 3.0 on the mac.

  On the production side, we saw new cameras from just about everyone. To start at the high end, the Arri Alexa was absolutely stunning. Perhaps the nicest digital cinema footage I’ve seen. Not only that, but they’ve worked out a usable workflow, recording to ProRes plus RAW. At the price point they’re promising, the world is going to get a lot more difficult for RED.

  Sony’s new XDCam EX gear is another good step forward for that format. Nothing groundbreaking, but another nice progression. I was kind of hoping we’d see 4:2:2 EX gear from them, but I suppose they need to justify the disc based formats for a while longer.

  The Panasonic AG-AF100 is another interesting camera, bringing micro 4/3rds into video. The only strange thing is the recording side - AVCHD to SD cards. While I’m thrilled to see them using SD instead of P2, it sure would have been nice to have an AVCIntra option.

  Finally, Canon’s 4:2:2 XF cams are a nice option for the ENG/EFP market. Nothing groundbreaking, aside from the extra color sampling, but it’s a nice step up from what they’ve been doing.

  Speaking of Canon, it’s interesting to see the ways that the 5d and 7d have made their way into mainstream filmmaking. At one point, I thought they’d be relegated to the indie community - folks looking for nice DoF on a budget. Instead, they seem to have been adopted by a huge range of productions, from episodic TV to features. While they’re not right for everyone, the price and quality make them an easy choice in many cases.

  One of the stars of the show for me was the GoPro, a small waterproof HD camera that ships with a variety of mounts, designed to be used in places where you couldn’t or wouldn’t use a more full featured camera. No LCD, just a record button and a wide angle lens. I bought two.

  Those are the things that stand out for me. While there was plenty of interesting stuff to be seen, given the current economic conditions at the University, I wasn’t exactly in a shopping mindset. The show definitely felt more optimistic than it did last year, and companies are again pushing out new products. However, attendances was about 20% lower than 2008, and that was definitely noticeable on the show floor.

• Anatomy of an optimization : H.264 deblocking

  26 mai 2010, par Dark Shikari — H.264, assembly, development, speed, x264

  As mentioned in the previous post, H.264 has an adaptive deblocking filter. But what exactly does that mean — and more importantly, what does it mean for performance ? And how can we make it as fast as possible ? In this post I’ll try to answer these questions, particularly in relation to my recent deblocking optimizations in x264.

  H.264′s deblocking filter has two steps : strength calculation and the actual filter. The first step calculates the parameters for the second step. The filter runs on all the edges in each macroblock. That’s 4 vertical edges of length 16 pixels and 4 horizontal edges of length 16 pixels. The vertical edges are filtered first, from left to right, then the horizontal edges, from top to bottom (order matters !). The leftmost edge is the one between the current macroblock and the left macroblock, while the topmost edge is the one between the current macroblock and the top macroblock.

  Here’s the formula for the strength calculation in progressive mode. The highest strength that applies is always selected.

  If we’re on the edge between an intra macroblock and any other macroblock : Strength 4
  If we’re on an internal edge of an intra macroblock : Strength 3
  If either side of a 4-pixel-long edge has residual data : Strength 2
  If the motion vectors on opposite sides of a 4-pixel-long edge are at least a pixel apart (in either x or y direction) or the reference frames aren’t the same : Strength 1
  Otherwise : Strength 0 (no deblocking)

  These values are then thrown into a lookup table depending on the quantizer : higher quantizers have stronger deblocking. Then the actual filter is run with the appropriate parameters. Note that Strength 4 is actually a special deblocking mode that performs a much stronger filter and affects more pixels.

  One can see somewhat intuitively why these strengths are chosen. The deblocker exists to get rid of sharp edges caused by the block-based nature of H.264, and so the strength depends on what exists that might cause such sharp edges. The strength calculation is a way to use existing data from the video stream to make better decisions during the deblocking process, improving compression and quality.

  Both the strength calculation and the actual filter (not described here) are very complex if naively implemented. The latter can be SIMD’d with not too much difficulty ; no H.264 decoder can get away with reasonable performance without such a thing. But what about optimizing the strength calculation ? A quick analysis shows that this can be beneficial as well.

  Since we have to check both horizontal and vertical edges, we have to check up to 32 pairs of coefficient counts (for residual), 16 pairs of reference frame indices, and 128 motion vector values (counting x and y as separate values). This is a lot of calculation ; a naive implementation can take 500-1000 clock cycles on a modern CPU. Of course, there’s a lot of shortcuts we can take. Here’s some examples :

  • If the macroblock uses the 8×8 transform, we only need to check 2 edges in each direction instead of 4, because we don’t deblock inside of the 8×8 blocks.
  • If the macroblock is a P-skip, we only have to check the first edge in each direction, since there’s guaranteed to be no motion vector differences, reference frame differences, or residual inside of the macroblock.
  • If the macroblock has no residual at all, we can skip that check.
  • If we know the partition type of the macroblock, we can do motion vector checks only along the edges of the partitions.
  • If the effective quantizer is so low that no deblocking would be performed no matter what, don’t bother calculating the strength.

  But even all of this doesn’t save us from ourselves. We still have to iterate over a ton of edges, checking each one. Stuff like the partition-checking logic greatly complicates the code and adds overhead even as it reduces the number of checks. And in many cases decoupling the checks to add such logic will make it slower : if the checks are coupled, we can avoid doing a motion vector check if there’s residual, since Strength 2 overrides Strength 1.

  But wait. What if we could do this in SIMD, just like the actual loopfilter itself ? Sure, it seems more of a problem for C code than assembly, but there aren’t any obvious things in the way. Many years ago, Loren Merritt (pengvado) wrote the first SIMD implementation that I know of (for ffmpeg’s decoder) ; it is quite fast, so I decided to work on porting the idea to x264 to see if we could eke out a bit more speed here as well.

  Before I go over what I had to do to make this change, let me first describe how deblocking is implemented in x264. Since the filter is a loopfilter, it acts “in loop” and must be done in both the encoder and decoder — hence why x264 has it too, not just decoders. At the end of encoding one row of macroblocks, x264 goes back and deblocks the row, then performs half-pixel interpolation for use in encoding the next frame.

  We do it per-row for reasons of cache coherency : deblocking accesses a lot of pixels and a lot of code that wouldn’t otherwise be used, so it’s more efficient to do it in a single pass as opposed to deblocking each macroblock immediately after encoding. Then half-pixel interpolation can immediately re-use the resulting data.

  Now to the change. First, I modified deblocking to implement a subset of the macroblock_cache_load function : spend an extra bit of effort loading the necessary data into a data structure which is much simpler to address — as an assembly implementation would need (x264_macroblock_cache_load_deblock). Then I massively cleaned up deblocking to move all of the core strength-calculation logic into a single, small function that could be converted to assembly (deblock_strength_c). Finally, I wrote the assembly functions and worked with Loren to optimize them. Here’s the result.

  And the timings for the resulting assembly function on my Core i7, in cycles :

  deblock_strength_c : 309
  deblock_strength_mmx : 79
  deblock_strength_sse2 : 37
  deblock_strength_ssse3 : 33

  Now that is a seriously nice improvement. 33 cycles on average to perform that many comparisons–that’s absurdly low, especially considering the SIMD takes no branchy shortcuts : it always checks every single edge ! I walked over to my performance chart and happily crossed off a box.

  But I had a hunch that I could do better. Remember, as mentioned earlier, we’re reloading all that data back into our data structures in order to address it. This isn’t that slow, but takes enough time to significantly cut down on the gain of the assembly code. And worse, less than a row ago, all this data was in the correct place to be used (when we just finished encoding the macroblock) ! But if we did the deblocking right after encoding each macroblock, the cache issues would make it too slow to be worth it (yes, I tested this). So I went back to other things, a bit annoyed that I couldn’t get the full benefit of the changes.

  Then, yesterday, I was talking with Pascal, a former Xvid dev and current video hacker over at Google, about various possible x264 optimizations. He had seen my deblocking changes and we discussed that a bit as well. Then two lines hit me like a pile of bricks :

  <_skal_> tried computing the strength at least ?
  <_skal_> while it’s fresh

  Why hadn’t I thought of that ? Do the strength calculation immediately after encoding each macroblock, save the result, and then go pick it up later for the main deblocking filter. Then we can use the data right there and then for strength calculation, but we don’t have to do the whole deblock process until later.

  I went and implemented it and, after working my way through a horde of bugs, eventually got a working implementation. A big catch was that of slices : deblocking normally acts between slices even though normal encoding does not, so I had to perform extra munging to get that to work. By midday today I was able to go cross yet another box off on the performance chart. And now it’s committed.

  Sometimes chatting for 10 minutes with another developer is enough to spot the idea that your brain somehow managed to miss for nearly a straight week.

  NB : the performance chart is on a specific test clip at a specific set of settings (super fast settings) relevant to the company I work at, so it isn’t accurate nor complete for, say, default settings.

  Update : Here’s a higher resolution version of the current chart, as requested in the comments.
  

  http://git.videolan.org/?p=x264.git ;a=commit ;h=b9ec3ea27812288485329ac7771143021cd4917b