Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (5448)

• The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8

    
  19 mai 2010, par Dark Shikari — VP8, google

  Back in my original post about Internet video, I made some initial comments on the hope that VP8 would solve the problems of web video by providing a supposed patent-free video format with significantly better compression than the current options of Theora and Dirac. Fortunately, it seems I was able to acquire access to the VP8 spec, software, and source a good few days before the official release and so was able to perform a detailed technical analysis in time for the official release.

  The questions I will try to answer here are :

  1. How good is VP8 ? Is the file format actually better than H.264 in terms of compression, and could a good VP8 encoder beat x264 ? On2 claimed 50% better than H.264, but On2 has always made absurd claims that they were never able to back up with results, so such a number is almost surely wrong. VP7, for example, was claimed to be 15% better than H.264 while being much faster, but was in reality neither faster nor higher quality.

  2. How good is On2′s VP8 implementation ? Irrespective of how good the spec is, is the implementation good, or is this going to be just like VP3, where On2 releases an unusably bad implementation with the hope that the community will fix it for them ? Let’s hope not ; it took 6 years to fix Theora !

  3. How likely is VP8 to actually be free of patents ? Even if VP8 is worse than H.264, being patent-free is still a useful attribute for obvious reasons. But as noted in my previous post, merely being published by Google doesn’t guarantee that it is. Microsoft did similar a few years ago with the release of VC-1, which was claimed to be patent-free — but within mere months after release, a whole bunch of companies claimed patents on it and soon enough a patent pool was formed.

  We’ll start by going through the core features of VP8. We’ll primarily analyze them by comparing to existing video formats. Keep in mind that an encoder and a spec are two different things : it’s possible for good encoder to be written for a bad spec or vice versa ! Hence why a really good MPEG-1 encoder can beat a horrific H.264 encoder.

  But first, a comment on the spec itself.

  AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !

  The spec consists largely of C code copy-pasted from the VP8 source code — up to and including TODOs, “optimizations”, and even C-specific hacks, such as workarounds for the undefined behavior of signed right shift on negative numbers. In many places it is simply outright opaque. Copy-pasted C code is not a spec. I may have complained about the H.264 spec being overly verbose, but at least it’s precise. The VP8 spec, by comparison, is imprecise, unclear, and overly short, leaving many portions of the format very vaguely explained. Some parts even explicitly refuse to fully explain a particular feature, pointing to highly-optimized, nigh-impossible-to-understand reference code for an explanation. There’s no way in hell anyone could write a decoder solely with this spec alone.

  Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, let’s get back to VP8 itself. To begin with, to get a general sense for where all this fits in, basically all modern video formats work via some variation on the following chain of steps :

  Encode : Predict -> Transform + Quant -> Entropy Code -> Loopfilter
  Decode : Entropy Decode -> Predict -> Dequant + Inverse Transform -> Loopfilter

  If you’re looking to just get to the results and skip the gritty technical details, make sure to check out the “overall verdict” section and the “visual results” section. Or at least skip to the “summary for the lazy”.
  

  Prediction

  Prediction is any step which attempts to guess the content of an area of the frame. This could include functions based on already-known pixels in the same frame (e.g. inpainting) or motion compensation from a previous frame. Prediction usually involves side data, such as a signal telling the decoder a motion vector to use for said motion compensation.

  Intra Prediction

  Intra prediction is used to guess the content of a block without referring to other frames. VP8′s intra prediction is basically ripped off wholesale from H.264 : the “subblock” prediction modes are almost exactly identical (they even have the same names !) to H.264′s i4x4 mode, and the whole block prediction mode is basically identical to i16x16. Chroma prediction modes are practically identical as well. i8x8, from H.264 High Profile, is not present. An additional difference is that the planar prediction mode has been replaced with TM_PRED, a very vaguely similar analogue. The specific prediction modes are internally slightly different, but have the same names as in H.264.

  Honestly, I’m very disappointed here. While H.264′s intra prediction is good, it has certainly been improved on quite a bit over the past 7 years, and I thought that blatantly ripping it off was the domain of companies like Real (see RV40). I expected at least something slightly more creative out of On2. But more important than any of that : this is a patent time-bomb waiting to happen. H.264′s spatial intra prediction is covered in patents and I don’t think that On2 will be able to just get away with changing the rounding in the prediction modes. I’d like to see Google’s justification for this — they must have a good explanation for why they think there won’t be any patent issues.

  Update : spatial intra prediction apparently dates back to Nokia’s MVC H.26L proposal, from around 2000. It’s possible that Google believes that this is sufficient prior art to invalidate existing patents — which is not at all unreasonable !

  Verdict on Intra Prediction : Slightly modified ripoff of H.264. Somewhat worse than H.264 due to omission of i8x8.

  Inter Prediction

  Inter prediction is used to guess the content of a block by referring to past frames. There are two primary components to inter prediction : reference frames and motion vectors. The reference frame is a past frame from which to grab pixels from and the motion vectors index an offset into that frame. VP8 supports a total of 3 reference frames : the previous frame, the “alt ref” frame, and the “golden frame”. For motion vectors, VP8 supports variable-size partitions much like H.264. For subpixel precision, it supports quarter-pel motion vectors with a 6-tap interpolation filter. In short :

  VP8 reference frames : up to 3
  H.264 reference frames : up to 16
  VP8 partition types : 16×16, 16×8, 8×16, 8×8, 4×4
  H.264 partition types : 16×16, 16×8, 8×16, flexible subpartitions (each 8×8 can be 8×8, 8×4, 4×8, or 4×4).
  VP8 chroma MV derivation : each 4×4 chroma block uses the average of colocated luma MVs (same as MPEG-4 ASP)
  H.264 chroma MV derivation : chroma uses luma MVs directly
  VP8 interpolation filter : qpel, 6-tap luma, mixed 4/6-tap chroma
  H.264 interpolation filter : qpel, 6-tap luma (staged filter), bilinear chroma
  H.264 has but VP8 doesn’t : B-frames, weighted prediction

  H.264 has a significantly better and more flexible referencing structure. Sub-8×8 partitions are mostly unnecessary, so VP8′s omission of the H.264-style subpartitions has little consequence. The chroma MV derivation is more accurate in H.264 but slightly slower ; in practice the difference is probably near-zero both speed and compression-wise, since sub-8×8 luma partitions are rarely used (and I would suspect the same carries over to VP8).

  The VP8 interpolation filter is likely slightly better, but will definitely be slower to implement, both encoder and decoder-side. A staged filter allows the encoder to precalculate all possible halfpel positions and then quickly calculate qpel positions when necessary : an unstaged filter does not, making subpel motion estimation much slower. Not that unstaged filters are bad — staged filters have basically been abandoned for all of the H.265 proposals — it’s just an inherent disadvantage performance-wise. Additionally, having as high as 6 taps on chroma is, IMO, completely unnecessary and wasteful.

  The lack of B-frames in VP8 is a killer. B-frames can give 10-20% (or more) compression benefit for minimal speed cost ; their omission in VP8 probably costs more compression than all other problems noted in this post combined. This was not unexpected, however ; On2 has never used B-frames in any of their video formats. They also likely present serious patent problems, which probably explains their omission. Lack of weighted prediction is also going to hurt a bit, especially in fades.

  Update : Alt-ref frames can apparently be used to partially replicate the lack of B-frames. It’s not nearly as good, but it can get at least some of the benefit without actual B-frames.

  Verdict on Inter Prediction : Similar partitioning structure to H.264. Much weaker referencing structure. More complex, slightly better interpolation filter. Mostly a wash — except for the lack of B-frames, which is seriously going to hurt compression.
  

  Transform and Quantization
  

  After prediction, the encoder takes the difference between the prediction and the actual source pixels (the residual), transforms it, and quantizes it. The transform step is designed to make the data more amenable to compression by decorrelating it. The quantization step is the actual information-losing step where compression occurs ; the output values of transform are rounded, mostly to zero, leaving only a few integer coefficients.

  Transform

  For transform, VP8 uses again a very H.264-reminiscent scheme. Each 16×16 macroblock is divided into 16 4×4 DCT blocks, each of which is transformed by a bit-exact DCT approximation. Then, the DC coefficients of each block are collected into another 4×4 group, which is then Hadamard-transformed. OK, so this isn’t reminiscent of H.264, this is H.264. There are, however, 3 differences between VP8′s scheme and H.264′s.

  The first is that the 8×8 transform is omitted entirely (fitting with the omission of the i8x8 intra mode). The second is the specifics of the transform itself. H.264 uses an extremely simplified “DCT” which is so un-DCT-like that it often referred to as the HCT (H.264 Cosine Transform) instead. This simplified transform results in roughly 1% worse compression, but greatly simplifies the transform itself, which can be implemented entirely with adds, subtracts, and right shifts by 1. VC-1 uses a more accurate version that relies on a few small multiplies (numbers like 17, 22, 10, etc). VP8 uses an extremely, needlessly accurate version that uses very large multiplies (20091 and 35468). This in retrospect is not surpising, as it is very similar to what VP3 used.

  The third difference is that the Hadamard hierarchical transform is applied for some inter blocks, not merely i16x16. In particular, it also runs for p16x16 blocks. While this is definitely a good idea, especially given the small transform size (and the need to decorrelate the DC value between the small transforms), I’m not quite sure I agree with the decision to limit it to p16x16 blocks ; it seems that perhaps with a small amount of modification this could also be useful for other motion partitions. Also, note that unlike H.264, the hierarchical transform is luma-only and not applied to chroma.

  Overall, the transform scheme in VP8 is definitely weaker than in H.264. The lack of an 8×8 transform is going to have a significant impact on detail retention, especially at high resolutions. The transform is needlessly slower than necessary as well, though a shift-based transform might be out of the question due to patents. The one good new idea here is applying the hierarchical DC transform to inter blocks.

  Verdict on Transform : Similar to H.264. Slower, slightly more accurate 4×4 transform. Improved DC transform for luma (but not on chroma). No 8×8 transform. Overall, worse.

  Quantization

  For quantization, the core process is basically the same among all MPEG-like video formats, and VP8 is no exception. The primary ways that video formats tend to differentiate themselves here is by varying quantization scaling factors. There are two ways in which this is primarily done : frame-based offsets that apply to all coefficients or just some portion of them, and macroblock-level offsets. VP8 primarily uses the former ; in a scheme much less flexible than H.264′s custom quantization matrices, it allows for adjusting the quantizer of luma DC, luma AC, chroma DC, and so forth, separately. The latter (macroblock-level quantizer choice) can, in theory, be done using its “segmentation map” features, albeit very hackily and not very efficiently.

  The killer mistake that VP8 has made here is not making macroblock-level quantization a core feature of VP8. Algorithms that take advantage of macroblock-level quantization are known as “adaptive quantization” and are absolutely critical to competitive visual quality. My implementation of variance-based adaptive quantization (before, after) in x264 still stands to this day as the single largest visual quality gain in x264 history. Encoder comparisons have showed over and over that encoders without adaptive quantization simply cannot compete.

  Thus, while adaptive quantization is possible in VP8, the only way to implement it is to define one segment map for every single quantizer that one wants and to code the segment map index for every macroblock. This is inefficient and cumbersome ; even the relatively suboptimal MPEG-style delta quantizer system would be a better option. Furthermore, only 4 segment maps are allowed, for a maximum of 4 quantizers per frame.

  Verdict on Quantization : Lack of well-integrated adaptive quantization is going to be a killer when the time comes to implement psy optimizations. Overall, much worse.

  Entropy Coding

  Entropy coding is the process of taking all the information from all the other processes : DCT coefficients, prediction modes, motion vectors, and so forth — and compressing them losslessly into the final output file. VP8 uses an arithmetic coder somewhat similar to H.264′s, but with a few critical differences. First, it omits the range/probability table in favor of a multiplication. Second, it is entirely non-adaptive : unlike H.264′s, which adapts after every bit decoded, probability values are constant over the course of the frame. Accordingly, the encoder may periodically send updated probability values in frame headers for some syntax elements. Keyframes reset the probability values to the defaults.

  This approach isn’t surprising ; VP5 and VP6 (and probably VP7) also used non-adaptive arithmetic coders. How much of a penalty this actually means compression-wise is unknown ; it’s not easy to measure given the design of either H.264 or VP8. More importantly, I question the reason for this : making it adaptive would add just one single table lookup to the arithmetic decoding function — hardly a very large performance impact.

  Of course, the arithmetic coder is not the only part of entropy coding : an arithmetic coder merely turns 0s and 1s into an output bitstream. The process of creating those 0s and 1s and selecting the probabilities for the encoder to use is an equally interesting problem. Since this is a very complicated part of the video format, I’ll just comment on the parts that I found particularly notable.

  Motion vector coding consists of two parts : prediction based on neighboring motion vectors and the actual compression of the resulting delta between that and the actual motion vector. The prediction scheme in VP8 is a bit odd — worse, the section of the spec covering this contains no English explanation, just confusingly-written C code. As far as I can tell, it chooses an arithmetic coding context based on the neighboring MVs, then decides which of the predicted motion vectors to use, or whether to code a delta instead.

  The downside of this scheme is that, like in VP3/Theora (though not nearly as badly), it biases heavily towards the re-use of previous motion vectors. This is dangerous because, as the Theora devs have recently found (and fixed to some extent in Theora 1.2 aka Ptalabvorm), any situation in which the encoder picks a motion vector which isn’t the “real” motion vector in order to save bits can potentially have negative visual consequences. In terms of raw efficiency, I’m not sure whether VP8 or H.264′s prediction is better here.

  The compression of the resulting delta is similar to H.264, except for the coding of very large deltas, which is slightly better (similar to FFV1′s Golomb-like arithmetic codes).

  Intra prediction mode coding is done using arithmetic coding contexts based on the modes of the neighboring blocks. This is probably a good bit better than the hackneyed method that H.264 uses, which always struck me as being poorly designed.

  Residual coding is even more difficult to understand than motion vector coding, as the only full reference is a bunch of highly optimized, highly obfuscated C code. Like H.264′s CAVLC, it bases contexts on the number of nonzero coefficients in the top and left blocks relative to the current block. In addition, it also considers the magnitude of those coefficients and, like H.264′s CABAC, updates as coefficients are decoded.

  One more thing to note is the data partitioning scheme used by VP8. This scheme is much like VP3/Theora’s and involves putting each syntax element in its own component of the bitstream. The unfortunate problem with this is that it’s a nightmare for hardware implementations, greatly increasing memory bandwidth requirements. I have already received a complaint from a hardware developer about this specific feature with regard to VP8.

  Verdict on Entropy Coding : I’m not quite sure here. It’s better in some ways, worse in some ways, and just plain weird in others. My hunch is that it’s probably a very slight win for H.264 ; non-adaptive arithmetic coding has to have some serious penalties. It may also be a hardware implementation problem.
  

  Loop Filter

  The loop filter is run after decoding or encoding a frame and serves to perform extra processing on a frame, usually to remove blockiness in DCT-based video formats. Unlike postprocessing, this is not only for visual reasons, but also to improve prediction for future frames. Thus, it has to be done identically in both the encoder and decoder. VP8′s loop filter is vaguely similar to H.264′s, but with a few differences. First, it has two modes (which can be chosen by the encoder) : a fast mode and a normal mode. The fast mode is somewhat simpler than H.264′s, while the normal mode is somewhat more complex. Secondly, when filtering between macroblocks, VP8′s filter has wider range than the in-macroblock filter — H.264 did this, but only for intra edges.

  Third, VP8′s filter omits most of the adaptive strength mechanics inherent in H.264′s filter. Its only adaptation is that it skips filtering on p16x16 blocks with no coefficients. This may be responsible for the high blurriness of VP8′s loop filter : it will run over and over and over again on all parts of a macroblock even if they are unchanged between frames (as long as some other part of the macroblock is changed). H.264′s, by comparison, is strength-adaptive based on whether DCT coefficients exist on either side of a given edge and based on the motion vector delta and reference frame delta across said edge. Of course, skipping this strength calculation saves some decoding time as well.

  Update :
  05:28 < derf> Gumboot : You’ll be disappointed to know they got the loop filter ordering wrong again.
  05:29 < derf> Dark_Shikari : They ordered it such that you have to process each macroblock in full before processing the next one.

  Verdict on Loop Filter : Definitely worse compression-wise than H.264′s due to the lack of adaptive strength. Especially with the “fast” mode, might be significantly faster. I worry about it being too blurry.

  Overall verdict on the VP8 video format

  Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise. The primary weaknesses mentioned above are the lack of proper adaptive quantization, lack of B-frames, lack of an 8×8 transform, and non-adaptive loop filter. With this in mind, I expect VP8 to be more comparable to VC-1 or H.264 Baseline Profile than with H.264. Of course, this is still significantly better than Theora, and in my tests it beats Dirac quite handily as well.

  Supposedly Google is open to improving the bitstream format — but this seems to conflict with the fact that they got so many different companies to announce VP8 support. The more software that supports a file format, the harder it is to change said format, so I’m dubious of any claim that we will be able to spend the next 6-12 months revising VP8. In short, it seems to have been released too early : it would have been better off to have an initial period during which revisions could be submitted and then a big announcement later when it’s completed.

  Update : it seems that Google is not open to changing the spec : it is apparently “final”, complete with all its flaws.

  In terms of decoding speed I’m not quite sure ; the current implementation appears to be about 16% slower than ffmpeg’s H.264 decoder (and thus probably about 25-35% slower than state-of-the-art decoders like CoreAVC). Of course, this doesn’t necessarily say too much about what a fully optimized implementation will reach, but the current one seems to be reasonably well-optimized and has SIMD assembly code for almost all major DSP functions, so I doubt it will get that much faster.

  I would expect, with equally optimized implementations, VP8 and H.264 to be relatively comparable in terms of decoding speed. This, of course, is not really a plus for VP8 : H.264 has a great deal of hardware support, while VP8 largely has to rely on software decoders, so being “just as fast” is in many ways not good enough. By comparison, Theora decodes almost 35% faster than H.264 using ffmpeg’s decoder.

  Finally, the problem of patents appears to be rearing its ugly head again. VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264 : a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be “H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder”. Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn’t manage to escape the clutches of software patents. It’s quite possible that VP8 has no patent issues, but until we get some hard evidence that VP8 is safe, I would be cautious. Since Google is not indemnifying users of VP8 from patent lawsuits, this is even more of a potential problem. Most importantly, Google has not released any justifications for why the various parts of VP8 do not violate patents, as Sun did with their OMS standard : such information would certainly cut down on speculation and make it more clear what their position actually is.

  But if luck is on Google’s side and VP8 does pass through the patent gauntlet unscathed, it will undoubtedly be a major upgrade as compared to Theora.

  Addendum A : On2′s VP8 Encoder and Decoder

  This post is primarily aimed at discussing issues relating to the VP8 video format. But from a practical perspective, while software can be rewritten and improved, to someone looking to use VP8 in the near future, the quality (both code-wise, compression-wise, and speed-wise) of the official VP8 encoder and decoder is more important than anything I’ve said above. Thus, after reading through most of the code, here’s my thoughts on the software.

  Initially I was intending to go easy on On2 here ; I assumed that this encoder was in fact new for VP8 and thus they wouldn’t necessarily have time to make the code high-quality and improve its algorithms. However, as I read through the encoder, it became clear that this was not at all true ; there were comments describing bugfixes dating as far back as early 2004. That’s right : this software is even older than x264 ! I’m guessing that the current VP8 software simply evolved from the original VP7 software. Anyways, this means that I’m not going to go easy on On2 ; they’ve had (at least) 6 years to work on VP8, and a much larger dev team than x264′s to boot.

  Before I tear the encoder apart, keep in mind that it isn’t bad. In fact, compression-wise, I don’t think they’re going to be able to get it that much better using standard methods. I would guess that the encoder, on slowest settings, is within 5-10% of the maximum PSNR that they’ll ever get out of it. There’s definitely a whole lot more to be had using unusual algorithms like MB-tree, not to mention the complete lack of psy optimizations — but at what it tries to do, it does pretty decently. This is in contrast to the VP3 encoder, which was a pile of garbage (just ask any Theora dev).

  Before I go into specific components, a general note on code quality. The code quality is much better than VP3, though there’s still tons of typos in the comments. They also appear to be using comments as a form of version control system, which is a bit bizarre. The assembly code is much worse, with staggering levels of copy-paste coding, some completely useless instructions that do nothing at all, unaligned loads/stores to what-should-be aligned data structures, and a few functions that are simply written in unfathomably roundabout (and slower) ways. While the C code isn’t half bad, the assembly is clearly written by retarded monkeys. But I’m being unfair : this is way better than with VP3.

  Motion estimation : Diamond, hex, and exhaustive (full) searches available. All are pretty naively implemented : hexagon, for example, performs a staggering amount of redundant work (almost half of the locations it searches are repeated !). Full is even worse in terms of inefficiency, but it’s useless for all but placebo-level speeds, so I’m not really going to complain about that.

  Subpixel motion estimation : Straightforward iterative diamond and square searches. Nothing particularly interesting here.

  Quantization : Primary quantization has two modes : a fast mode and a slightly slower mode. The former is just straightforward deadzone quant, while the latter has a bias based on zero-run length (not quite sure how much this helps, but I like the idea). After this they have “coefficient optimization” with two modes. One mode simply tries moving each nonzero coefficient towards zero ; the slow mode tries all 2^16 possible DCT coefficient rounding permutations. Whoever wrote this needs to learn what trellis quantization (the dynamic programming solution to the problem) is and stop using exponential-time algorithms in encoders.

  Ratecontrol (frame type handling) : Relies on “boosting” the quality of golden frames and “alt-ref” frames — a concept I find extraordinarily dubious because it means that the video will periodically “jump” to a higher quality level, which looks utterly terrible in practice. You can see the effect in this graph of PSNR ; every dozen frames or so, the quality “jumps”. This cannot possibly look good in motion.

  Ratecontrol (overall) : Relies on a purely reactive ratecontrol algorithm, which probably will not do very well in difficult situations such as hard-CBR and tight buffer constraints. Furthermore, it does no adaptation of the quantizer within the frame (e.g. in the case that the frame overshot the size limitations ratecontrol put on it). Instead, it relies on re-encoding the frame repeatedly to reach the target size — which in practice is simply not a usable option for two reasons. In low-latency situations where one can’t have a large delay, re-encoding repeatedly may send the encoder way behind time-wise. In any other situation, one can afford to use frame-based threading, a much faster algorithm for multithreaded encoding than the typical slice-based threading — which makes re-encoding impossible.

  Loop filter : The encoder attempts to optimize the loop filter parameters for maximum PSNR. I’m not quite sure how good an idea this is ; every example I’ve seen of this with H.264 ends up creating very bad (often blurry) visual results.

  Overall performance : Even on the absolute fastest settings with multithreading, their encoder is slow. On my 1.6Ghz Core i7 it gets barely 26fps encoding 1080p ; not even enough to reliably do real-time compression. x264, by comparison, gets 101fps at its fastest preset “ultrafast”. Now, sure, I don’t expect On2′s encoder to be anywhere near as fast as x264, but being unable to stream HD video on a modern quad-core system is simply not reasonable in 2010. Additionally, the speed options are extraordinarily confusing and counterintuitive and don’t always seem to work properly ; for example, fast encoding mode (–rt) seems to be ignored completely in 2-pass.

  Overall compression : As said before, compression-wise the encoder does a pretty good job with the spec that it’s given. The slower algorithms in the encoder are clearly horrifically unoptimized (see the comments on motion search and quantization in particular), but they still work.

  Decoder : Seems to be straightforward enough. Nothing jumped out at me as particularly bad, slow, or otherwise, besides the code quality issues mentioned above.

  Practical problems : The encoder and decoder share a staggering amount of code. This means that any bug in the common code will affect both, and thus won’t be spotted because it will affect them both in a matching fashion.  This is the inherent problem with any file format that doesn’t have independent implementations and is defined by a piece of software instead of a spec : there are always bugs. RV40 had a hilarious example of this, where a typo of “22″ instead of “33″ resulted in quarter-pixel motion compensation being broken. Accordingly, I am very dubious of any file format defined by software instead of a specification. Google should wait until independent implementations have been created before setting the spec in stone.

  Update : it seems that what I forsaw is already coming true :

  <derf> gmaxwell : It survives it with a patch that causes artifacts because their encoder doesn’t clamp MVs properly.
  <gmaxwell> ::cries: :
  <derf> So they reverted my decoder patch, instead of fixing the encoder.
  <gmaxwell> “but we have many files encoded with this !”
  <gmaxwell> so great.. single implementation and it depends on its own bugs.

  This is just like Internet Explorer 6 all over again — bugs in the software become part of the “spec” !

  Hard PSNR numbers :
  (Source/target bitrate are the same as in my upcoming comparison.)
  x264, slowest mode, High Profile : 29.76103db ( 28% better than VP8)
  VP8, slowest mode : 28.37708db ( 8.5% better than x264 baseline)
  x264, slowest mode, Baseline Profile : 27.95594db

  Note that these numbers are a “best-case” situation : we’re testing all three optimized for PSNR, which is what the current VP8 encoder specializes in as well. This is not too different from my expectations above as estimated from the spec itself ; it’s relatively close to x264′s Baseline Profile.

  Keep in mind that this is not representative of what you can get out of VP8 now, but rather what could be gotten out of VP8. PSNR is meaningless for real-world encoding — what matters is visual quality — so hopefully if problems like the adaptive quantization issue mentioned previously can be overcome, the VP8 encoder could be improved to have x264-level psy optimizations. However, as things stand…

  Visual results : Unfortunately, since the current VP8 encoder optimizes entirely for PSNR, the visual results are less than impressive. Here’s a sampling of how it compares with some other encoders. Source and bitrate are the same as above ; all encoders are optimized for optimal visual quality wherever possible. And apparently given some of the responses to this part, many people cannot actually read ; the bitrate is (as close as possible to) the same on all of these files.

  Update : I got completely slashdotted and my few hundred gigs of bandwidth ran out in mere hours. The images below have been rehosted, so if you’ve pasted the link somewhere else, check below for the new one.

  VP8 (On2 VP8 rc8) (source) (Note : I recently realized that the official encoder doesn’t output MKV, so despite the name, this file is actually a VP8 bitstream wrapped in IVF, as generated by ivfenc. Decode it with ivfdec.)
  H.264 (Recent x264) (source)
  H.264 Baseline Profile (Recent x264) (source)
  Theora (Recent ptalabvorm nightly) (source)
  Dirac (Schroedinger 1.0.9) (source)
  VC-1 (Microsoft VC-1 SDK) (source)
  MPEG-4 ASP (Xvid 1.2.2) (source)

  The quality generated by On2′s VP8 encoder will probably not improve significantly without serious psy optimizations.

  One further note about the encoder : currently it will drop frames by default, which is incredibly aggravating and may cause serious problems. I strongly suggest anyone using it to turn the frame-dropping feature off in the options.

  Addendum B : Google’s choice of container and audio format for HTML5

  Google has chosen Matroska for their container format. This isn’t particularly surprising : Matroska is one of the most widely used “modern” container formats and is in many ways best-suited to the task. MP4 (aka ISOmedia) is probably a better-designed format, but is not very flexible ; while in theory it can stick anything in a private stream, a standardization process is technically necessary to “officially” support any new video or audio formats. Patents are probably a non-issue ; the MP4 patent pool was recently disbanded, largely because nobody used any of the features that were patented.

  Another advantage of Matroska is that it can be used for streaming video : while it isn’t typically, the spec allows it. Note that I do not mean progressive download (a’la Youtube), but rather actual streaming, where the encoder is working in real-time. The only way to do this with MP4 is by sending “segments” of video, a very hacky approach in which one is effectively sending a bunch of small MP4 files in sequence. This approach is used by Microsoft’s Silverlight “Smooth Streaming”. Not only is this an ugly hack, but it’s unsuitable for low-latency video. This kind of hack is unnecessary for Matroska. One possible problem is that since almost nobody currently uses Matroska for live streaming purposes, very few existing Matroska implementations support what is necessary to play streamed Matroska files.

  I’m not quite sure why Google chose to rebrand Matroska ; “WebM” is a silly name and Matroska is already pretty well-recognized as a brand.

  The choice of Vorbis for audio is practically a no-brainer. Even ignoring the issue of patents, libvorbis is still the best general-purpose open source audio encoder. While AAC is generally better at very low bitrates, there aren’t any good open source AAC encoders : faac is worse than LAME and ffmpeg’s AAC encoder is even worse. Furthermore, faac is not free software ; it contains code from the non-free reference encoder. Combined with the patent issue, nobody expected Google to pick anything else.

  Addendum C : Summary for the lazy

  VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It’s not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile. If Google is willing to revise the spec, this can probably be improved.

  VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft’s VC-1 in terms of visual quality. This can definitely be improved a lot.

  VP8, as a decoder, decodes even slower than ffmpeg’s H.264. This probably can’t be improved that much ; VP8 as a whole is similar in complexity to H.264.

  With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious.

  VP8 is definitely better compression-wise than Theora and Dirac, so if its claim to being patent-free does stand up, it’s a big upgrade with regard to patent-free video formats.

  VP8 is not ready for prime-time ; the spec is a pile of copy-pasted C code and the encoder’s interface is lacking in features and buggy. They aren’t even ready to finalize the bitstream format, let alone switch the world over to VP8.

  With the lack of a real spec, the VP8 software basically is the spec–and with the spec being “final”, any bugs are now set in stone. Such bugs have already been found and Google has rejected fixes.

  Google made the right decision to pick Matroska and Vorbis for its HTML5 video proposal.

  29.76103

• How to Choose the Optimal Multi-Touch Attribution Model for Your Organisation

  13 mars 2023, par Erin — Analytics Tips

  If you struggle to connect the dots on your customer journeys, you are researching the correct solution. 

  Multi-channel attribution models allow you to better understand the users’ paths to conversion and identify key channels and marketing assets that assist them.

  That said, each attribution model has inherent limitations, which make the selection process even harder.

  This guide explains how to choose the optimal multi-touch attribution model. We cover the pros and cons of popular attribution models, main evaluation criteria and how-to instructions for model implementation. 

  Pros and Cons of Different Attribution Models 

  

  First Interaction 

  First Interaction attribution model (also known as first touch) assigns full credit to the conversion to the first channel, which brought in a lead. However, it doesn’t report other interactions the visitor had before converting.

  Marketers, who are primarily focused on demand generation and user acquisition, find the first touch attribution model useful to evaluate and optimise top-of-the-funnel (ToFU). 

  Pros 

  • Reflects the start of the customer journey
  • Shows channels that bring in the best-qualified leads 
  • Helps track brand awareness campaigns

  Cons 

  • Ignores the impact of later interactions at the middle and bottom of the funnel 
  • Doesn’t provide a full picture of users’ decision-making process 

  Last Interaction 

  Last Interaction attribution model (also known as last touch) shifts the entire credit allocation to the last channel before conversion. But it doesn’t account for the contribution of all other channels. 

  If your focus is conversion optimization, the last-touch model helps you determine which channels, assets or campaigns seal the deal for the prospect. 

  Pros 

  • Reports bottom-of-the-funnel events
  • Requires minimal data and configurations 
  • Helps estimate cost-per-lead or cost-per-acquisition

  Cons 

  • No visibility into assisted conversions and prior visitor interactions 
  • Overemphasise the importance of the last channel (which can often be direct traffic) 

  Last Non-Direct Interaction 

  Last Non-Direct attribution excludes direct traffic from the calculation and assigns the full conversion credit to the preceding channel. For example, a paid ad will receive 100% of credit for conversion if a visitor goes directly to your website to buy a product. 

  Last Non-Direct attribution provides greater clarity into the bottom-of-the-funnel (BoFU). events. Yet, it still under-reports the role other channels played in conversion. 

  Pros 

  • Improved channel visibility, compared to Last-Touch 
  • Avoids over-valuing direct visits
  • Reports on lead-generation efforts

  Cons 

  • Doesn’t work for account-based marketing (ABM) 
  • Devalues the quality over quantity of leads 

  Linear Model

  Linear attribution model assigns equal credit for a conversion to all tracked touchpoints, regardless of their impact on the visitor’s decision to convert.

  It helps you understand the full conversion path. But this model doesn’t distinguish between the importance of lead generation activities versus nurturing touches.

  Pros 

  • Focuses on all touch points associated with a conversion 
  • Reflects more steps in the customer journey 
  • Helps analyse longer sales cycles

  Cons 

  • Doesn’t accurately reflect the varying roles of each touchpoint 
  • Can dilute the credit if too many touchpoints are involved 

  Time Decay Model 

  Time decay models assumes that the closer a touchpoint is to the conversion, the greater its influence. Pre-conversion touchpoints get the highest credit, while the first ones are ranked lower (5%-5%-10%-15%-25%-30%).

  This model better reflects real-life customer journeys. However, it devalues the impact of brand awareness and demand-generation campaigns. 

  Pros 

  • Helps track longer sales cycles and reports on each touchpoint involved 
  • Allows customising the half-life of decay to improve reporting 
  • Promotes conversion optimization at BoFu stages

  Cons 

  • Can prompt marketers to curtail ToFU spending, which would translate to fewer qualified leads at lower stages
  • Doesn’t reflect highly-influential events at earlier stages (e.g., a product demo request or free account registration, which didn’t immediately lead to conversion)

  Position-Based Model 

  Position-Based attribution model (also known as the U-shaped model) allocates the biggest credit to the first and the last interaction (40% each). Then distributes the remaining 20% across other touches. 

  For many marketers, that’s the preferred multi-touch attribution model as it allows optimising both ToFU and BoFU channels. 

  Pros 

  • Helps establish the main channels for lead generation and conversion
  • Adds extra layers of visibility, compared to first- and last-touch attribution models 
  • Promotes budget allocation toward the most strategic touchpoints

  Cons 

  • Diminishes the importance of lead nurturing activities as more credit gets assigned to demand-gen and conversion-generation channels
  • Limited flexibility since it always assigns a fixed amount of credit to the first and last touchpoints, and the remaining credit is divided evenly among the other touchpoints

  How to Choose the Right Multi-Touch Attribution Model For Your Business 

  If you’re deciding which attribution model is best for your business, prepare for a heated discussion. Each one has its trade-offs as it emphasises or devalues the role of different channels and marketing activities.

  To reach a consensus, the best strategy is to evaluate each model against three criteria : Your marketing objectives, sales cycle length and data availability. 

  Marketing Objectives 

  Businesses generate revenue in many ways : Through direct sales, subscriptions, referral fees, licensing agreements, one-off or retainer services. Or any combination of these activities. 

  In each case, your marketing strategy will look different. For example, SaaS and direct-to-consumer (DTC) eCommerce brands have to maximise both demand generation and conversion rates. In contrast, a B2B cybersecurity consulting firm is more interested in attracting qualified leads (as opposed to any type of traffic) and progressively nurturing them towards a big-ticket purchase. 

  When selecting a multi-touch attribution model, prioritise your objectives first. Create a simple scoreboard, where your team ranks various channels and campaign types you rely on to close sales. 

  Alternatively, you can survey your customers to learn how they first heard about your company and what eventually triggered their conversion. Having data from both sides can help you cross-validate your assumptions and eliminate some biases. 

  Then consider which model would best reflect the role and importance of different channels in your sales cycle. Speaking of which….

  Sales Cycle Length 

  As shoppers, we spend less time deciding on a new toothpaste brand versus contemplating a new IT system purchase. Factors like industry, business model (B2C, DTC, B2B, B2BC), and deal size determine the average cycle length in your industry. 

  Statistically, low-ticket B2C sales can happen within just several interactions. The average B2B decision-making process can have over 15 steps, spread over several months. 

  That’s why not all multi-touch attribution models work equally well for each business. Time-decay suits better B2B companies, while B2C usually go for position-based or linear attribution. 

  Data Availability 

  Businesses struggle with multi-touch attribution model implementation due to incomplete analytics data. 

  Our web analytics tool captures more data than Google Analytics. That’s because we rely on a privacy-focused tracking mechanism, which allows you to collect analytics without showing a cookie consent banner in markets outside of Germany and the UK. 

  Cookie consent banners are mandatory with Google Analytics. Yet, almost 40% of global consumers reject it. This results in gaps in your analytics and subsequent inconsistencies in multi-touch attribution reports. With Matomo, you can compliantly collect more data for accurate reporting. 

  Some companies also struggle to connect collected insights to individual shoppers. With Matomo, you can cross-attribute users across browning sessions, using our visitors’ tracking feature. 

  When you already know a user’s identifier (e.g., full name or email address), you can track their on-site behaviours over time to better understand how they interact with your content and complete their purchases. Quick disclaimer, though, visitors’ tracking may not be considered compliant with certain data privacy laws. Please consult with a local authority if you have doubts. 

  How to Implement Multi-Touch Attribution

  Multi-touch attribution modelling implementation is like a “seek and find” game. You have to identify all significant touchpoints in your customers’ journeys. And sometimes also brainstorm new ways to uncover the missing parts. Then figure out the best way to track users’ actions at those stages (aka do conversion and events tracking). 

  Here’s a step-by-step walkthrough to help you get started. 

  Select a Multi-Touch Attribution Tool 

  The global marketing attribution software is worth $3.1 billion. Meaning there are plenty of tools, differing in terms of accuracy, sophistication and price.

  To make the right call prioritise five factors :

  • Available models : Look for a solution that offers multiple options and allows you to experiment with different modelling techniques or develop custom models. 
  • Implementation complexity : Some providers offer advanced data modelling tools for creating custom multi-touch attribution models, but offer few out-of-the-box modelling options. 
  • Accuracy : Check if the shortlisted tool collects the type of data you need. Prioritise providers who are less dependent on third-party cookies and allow you to identify repeat users. 
  • Your marketing stack : Some marketing attribution tools come with useful add-ons such as tag manager, heatmaps, form analytics, user session recordings and A/B testing tools. This means you can collect more data for multi-channel modelling with them instead of investing in extra software. 
  • Compliance : Ensure that the selected multi-attribution analytics software wouldn’t put you at risk of GDPR non-compliance when it comes to user privacy and consent to tracking/analysis. 

  Finally, evaluate the adoption costs. Free multi-channel analytics tools come with data quality and consistency trade-offs. Premium attribution tools may have “hidden” licensing costs and bill you for extra data integrations. 

  Look for a tool that offers a good price-to-value ratio (i.e., one that offers extra perks for a transparent price). 

  Set Up Proper Data Collection 

  Multi-touch attribution requires ample user data. To collect the right type of insights you need to set up : 

  • Website analytics : Ensure that you have all tracking codes installed (and working correctly !) to capture pageviews, on-site actions, referral sources and other data points around what users do on page. 
  • Tags : Add tracking parameters to monitor different referral channels (e.g., “facebook”), campaign types (e.g., ”final-sale”), and creative assets (e.g., “banner-1”). Tags help you get a clearer picture of different touchpoints. 
  • Integrations : To better identify on-site users and track their actions, you can also populate your attribution tool with data from your other tools – CRM system, A/B testing app, etc. 

  Finally, think about the ideal lookback window — a bounded time frame you’ll use to calculate conversions. For example, Matomo has a default windows of 7, 30 or 90 days. But you can configure a custom period to better reflect your average sales cycle. For instance, if you’re selling makeup, a shorter window could yield better results. But if you’re selling CRM software for the manufacturing industry, consider extending it.

  Configure Goals and Events 

  Goals indicate your main marketing objectives — more traffic, conversions and sales. In web analytics tools, you can measure these by tracking specific user behaviours. 

  For example : If your goal is lead generation, you can track :

  • Newsletter sign ups 
  • Product demo requests 
  • Gated content downloads 
  • Free trial account registration 
  • Contact form submission 
  • On-site call bookings 

  In each case, you can set up a unique tag to monitor these types of requests. Then analyse conversion rates — the percentage of users who have successfully completed the action. 

  To collect sufficient data for multi-channel attribution modelling, set up Goal Tracking for different types of touchpoints (MoFU & BoFU) and asset types (contact forms, downloadable assets, etc). 

  Your next task is to figure out how users interact with different on-site assets. That’s when Event Tracking comes in handy. 

  Event Tracking reports notify you about specific actions users take on your website. With Matomo Event Tracking, you can monitor where people click on your website, on which pages they click newsletter subscription links, or when they try to interact with static content elements (e.g., a non-clickable banner). 

  Using in-depth user behavioural reports, you can better understand which assets play a key role in the average customer journey. Using this data, you can localise “leaks” in your sales funnel and fix them to increase conversion rates.

  Test and Validated the Selected Model 

  A common challenge of multi-channel attribution modelling is determining the correct correlation and causality between exposure to touchpoints and purchases. 

  For example, a user who bought a discounted product from a Facebook ad would act differently than someone who purchased a full-priced product via a newsletter link. Their rate of pre- and post-sales exposure will also differ a lot — and your attribution model may not always accurately capture that. 

  That’s why you have to continuously test and tweak the selected model type. The best approach for that is lift analysis. 

  Lift analysis means comparing how your key metrics (e.g., revenue or conversion rates) change among users who were exposed to a certain campaign versus a control group. 

  In the case of multi-touch attribution modelling, you have to monitor how your metrics change after you’ve acted on the model recommendations (e.g., invested more in a well-performing referral channel or tried a new brand awareness Twitter ad). Compare the before and after ROI. If you see a positive dynamic, your model works great. 

  The downside of this approach is that you have to invest a lot upfront. But if your goal is to create a trustworthy attribution model, the best way to validate is to act on its suggestions and then test them against past results. 

  Conclusion

  A multi-touch attribution model helps you measure the impact of different channels, campaign types, and marketing assets on metrics that matter — conversion rate, sales volumes and ROI. 

  Using this data, you can invest budgets into the best-performing channels and confidently experiment with new campaign types. 

  As a Matomo user, you also get to do so without breaching customers’ privacy or compromising on analytics accuracy.

  Start using accurate multi-channel attribution in Matomo. Get your free 21-day trial now. No credit card required.

• Capture from multiple streams concurrently, best way to do it and how to reduce CPU usage

  19 juin 2019, par DRONE_6969

  I am currently in the process of writing an application that will capture a lot of RTSP streams(in my case its 12) and display it on the QT widget. The problem arouses when I am going beyond around 6-7 streams, the CPU usage spikes and there is visible stutter.

  The reason why I think that it is not QT draw function is because I have done some checking to measure how much time it takes to draw an incoming image from camera and just sample images I had, it is always a lot less than 33 milliseconds(even if there are 12 widgets being updated).

  I also just ran opencv capture method without drawing and got pretty much the same CPU consumption as if I was drawing the frames (lost like 10% CPU at most and GPU usage went to zero).

  IMPORTANT : I am using RTSP stream which is a h264 stream.

  IF IT MATTERS MY SPECS :

  Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3.40GHZ(8 CPUS)
  Memory : 16gb
  GPU : Intel HD Graphics 530

  (Also I ran my code on a computer with dedicated Graphics card, it did eliminate some stutter but CPU usage is still pretty high)

  I am currently using OPENCV 4.1.0 with GSTREAMER enabled and built, I also have the OPENCV-WORLD version, there is no difference in performance.

  I have created a special class called Camera that holds its frame size constraints and various control functions as well stream function. The stream function is being ran on a separate thread, whenever stream() function is done with current frame it sends ready Mat via onNewFrame event I created which converts to QPixmap and updates widget’s lastImage variable. This way I can update image in a more thread safe way.

  I have tried to manipulate those VideoCapture.set() values, but it didn’t really help.

  This is my stream function (Ignore the bool return, it doesn’t do anything it is a remnant from couple of minutes ago when I was trying to use std::async) :

  bool Camera::stream() {
  
      /* This function is meant to run on a separate thread and fill up the buffer independantly of
  
      main stream thread */
  
      //cv::setNumThreads(100);
  
      /* Rules for these slightly changed! */
  
      Mat pre;  // Grab initial undoctored frame
  
      //pre = Mat::zeros(size, CV_8UC1);
  
      Mat frame; // Final modified frame
  
      frame = Mat::zeros(size, CV_8UC1);
  
      if (!pre.isContinuous()) pre = pre.clone();
  
  
  
      ipCam.open(streamUrl, CAP_FFMPEG);
  
  
  
  
  
      while (ipCam.isOpened() && capture) {
  
          // If camera is opened wel need to capture and process the frame
  
          try {
  
              auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
  
  
  
              ipCam >> pre;
  
  
  
              if (pre.empty()) {
  
                  /* Check for blank frame, return error if there is a blank frame*/
  
                  cerr << id << ": ERROR! blank frame grabbed\n";
  
                  for (FrameListener* i : clients) {
  
                      i->onNotification(1); // Notify clients about this shit
  
                  }
  
                  break;
  
              }
  
  
  
              else {
  
                  // Only continue if frame not empty
  
  
  
                  if (pre.cols != size.width && pre.rows != size.height) {
  
                      resize(pre, frame, size);
  
                      pre.release();
  
                  }
  
                  else {
  
                      frame = pre;
  
                  }
  
  
  
                  dPacket* pack = new dPacket{id,&frame};
  
                  for (auto i : clients) {
  
                      i->onPNewFrame(pack);
  
                  }
  
                  frame.release();
  
                  delete pack;
  
              }
  
          }
  
  
  
          catch (int e) {
  
              cout << endl << "-----Exception during capture process! CODE " << e << endl;
  
          }
  
          // End camera manipulations
  
      }
  
  
  
      cout << "Camera timed out, or connection is closed..." << endl;
  
      if (tryResetConnection) {
  
          cout << "Reconnection flag is set, retrying after 3 seconds..." << endl;
  
          for (FrameListener* i : clients) {
  
              i->onNotification(-1); // Notify clients about this shit
  
          }
  
          this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::milliseconds(3000));
  
          stream();
  
      }
  
  
  
      return true;
  
  }

  This is my onPNewFrame function. The conversion is still being done on camera’s thread because it was called within stream() and therefore is within that scope(and I also checked) :

  void GLWidget::onPNewFrame(dPacket* inPack) {
  
      lastFlag = 0;
  
  
  
      if (bufferEnabled) {
  
          buffer.push(QPixmap::fromImage(toQImageFromPMat(inPack->frame)));
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          if (playing) {
  
              /* Only process if this widget is playing */
  
              frameProcessing = true;
  
              lastImage.convertFromImage(toQImageFromPMat(inPack->frame));
  
              frameProcessing = false;
  
          }
  
      }
  
  
  
      if (lastFlag != -1 && !lastImage.isNull()) {
  
          connecting = false;
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          connecting = true;
  
      }
  
  }

  This is my Mat to QImage :

  QImage GLWidget::toQImageFromPMat(cv::Mat* mat) {
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
      return QImage(mat->data, mat->cols, mat->rows, QImage::Format_RGB888).rgbSwapped();

  NOTE : not converting does not result in CPU boost (at least not a significant one).

  Minimal verifiable example

  This program is large. I am going to paste GLWidget.cpp and GLWidget.h as well as Camera.h and Camera.cpp. You can put GLWidget into anything just as long as you spawn more than 6 of it. Camera relies on the CamUtils, but it is possible to just paste url in videocapture

  I also supplied CamUtils, just in case

  Camera.h :

  #pragma once
  
  #include <iostream>
  
  #include <vector>
  
  #include <fstream>
  
  #include <map>
  
  #include <string>
  
  #include <sstream>
  
  #include <algorithm>
  
  #include "FrameListener.h"
  
  #include 
  
  #include <thread>
  
  #include "CamUtils.h"
  
  #include <ctime>
  
  #include "dPacket.h"
  
  
  
  using namespace std;
  
  using namespace cv;
  
  
  
  class Camera
  
  {
  
  
  
      /*
  
          CLEANED UP!
  
          Camera now is only responsible for streaming and echoing captured frames.
  
          Frames are now wrapped into dPacket struct.
  
      */
  
  
  
  
  
  private:
  
      string id;
  
      vector clients;
  
      VideoCapture ipCam;
  
      string streamUrl;
  
      Size size;
  
      bool tryResetConnection = false;
  
  
  
      //TODO: Remove these as they are not going to be used going on:
  
      bool isPlaying = true;
  
      bool capture = true;
  
  
  
      //SECRET FEATURES:
  
      bool detect = false;
  
  
  
  
  
  public:
  
      Camera(string url, int width = 480, int height = 240, bool detect_=false);
  
      bool stream();
  
      void setReconnectable(bool newReconStatus);
  
      void addListener(FrameListener* client);
  
      vector<bool> getState();    // Returns current state: vector[0] stream state; vector[1] stream state; TODO: Remove this as this is no longer should control behaviour
  
      void killStream();
  
      bool getReconnectable();
  
  };
  
  
  
  </bool></ctime></thread></algorithm></sstream></string></map></fstream></vector></iostream>

  Camera.cpp

  #include "Camera.h"
  
  
  
  
  
  Camera::Camera(string url, int width, int height, bool detect_) // Default 240p
  
  {
  
      streamUrl = url; // Prepare url
  
      size = Size(width, height);
  
      detect = detect_;
  
  
  
  }
  
  
  
  void Camera::addListener(FrameListener* client) {
  
      clients.push_back(client);
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  /*
  
                  TEST CAMERAS(Paste into cameras.dViewer):
  
                  {"id":"96a73796-c129-46fc-9c01-40acd8ed7122","ip":"176.57.73.231","password":"null","username":"null"},
  
                  {"id":"96a73796-c129-46fc-9c01-40acd8ed7122","ip":"176.57.73.231","password":"null","username":"null"},
  
                  {"id":"96a73796-c129-46fc-9c01-40acd8ed7144","ip":"172.20.101.13","password":"admin","username":"root"}
  
                  {"id":"96a73796-c129-46fc-9c01-40acd8ed7144","ip":"172.20.101.13","password":"admin","username":"root"}
  
  
  
  */
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  bool Camera::stream() {
  
      /* This function is meant to run on a separate thread and fill up the buffer independantly of
  
      main stream thread */
  
      //cv::setNumThreads(100);
  
      /* Rules for these slightly changed! */
  
      Mat pre;  // Grab initial undoctored frame
  
      //pre = Mat::zeros(size, CV_8UC1);
  
      Mat frame; // Final modified frame
  
      frame = Mat::zeros(size, CV_8UC1);
  
      if (!pre.isContinuous()) pre = pre.clone();
  
  
  
      ipCam.open(streamUrl, CAP_FFMPEG);
  
  
  
      while (ipCam.isOpened() && capture) {
  
          // If camera is opened wel need to capture and process the frame
  
          try {
  
              auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
  
  
  
              ipCam >> pre;
  
  
  
              if (pre.empty()) {
  
                  /* Check for blank frame, return error if there is a blank frame*/
  
                  cerr << id << ": ERROR! blank frame grabbed\n";
  
                  for (FrameListener* i : clients) {
  
                      i->onNotification(1); // Notify clients about this shit
  
                  }
  
                  break;
  
              }
  
  
  
              else {
  
                  // Only continue if frame not empty
  
  
  
                  if (pre.cols != size.width && pre.rows != size.height) {
  
                      resize(pre, frame, size);
  
                      pre.release();
  
                  }
  
                  else {
  
                      frame = pre;
  
                  }
  
  
  
                  auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
  
                  std::time_t ts = std::chrono::system_clock::to_time_t(end);
  
                  dPacket* pack = new dPacket{ id,&frame};
  
                  for (auto i : clients) {
  
                      i->onPNewFrame(pack);
  
                  }
  
                  frame.release();
  
                  delete pack;
  
              }
  
          }
  
  
  
          catch (int e) {
  
              cout << endl << "-----Exception during capture process! CODE " << e << endl;
  
          }
  
          // End camera manipulations
  
      }
  
  
  
      cout << "Camera timed out, or connection is closed..." << endl;
  
      if (tryResetConnection) {
  
          cout << "Reconnection flag is set, retrying after 3 seconds..." << endl;
  
          for (FrameListener* i : clients) {
  
              i->onNotification(-1); // Notify clients about this shit
  
          }
  
          this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::milliseconds(3000));
  
          stream();
  
      }
  
  
  
      return true;
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  void Camera::killStream(){
  
      tryResetConnection = false;
  
      capture = false;
  
      ipCam.release();
  
  }
  
  
  
  void Camera::setReconnectable(bool reconFlag) {
  
      tryResetConnection = reconFlag;
  
  }
  
  
  
  bool Camera::getReconnectable() {
  
      return tryResetConnection;
  
  }
  
  
  
  vector<bool> Camera::getState() {
  
      vector<bool> states;
  
      states.push_back(isPlaying);
  
      states.push_back(ipCam.isOpened());
  
      return states;
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  </bool></bool>

  GLWidget.h :

  #ifndef GLWIDGET_H
  
  #define GLWIDGET_H
  
  
  
  #include <qopenglwidget>
  
  #include <qmouseevent>
  
  #include "FrameListener.h"
  
  #include "Camera.h"
  
  #include "FrameListener.h"
  
  #include 
  
  #include "Camera.h"
  
  #include "CamUtils.h"
  
  #include 
  
  #include "dPacket.h"
  
  #include <chrono>
  
  #include <ctime>
  
  #include 
  
  #include "FullScreenVideo.h"
  
  #include <qmovie>
  
  #include "helper.h"
  
  #include <iostream>
  
  #include <qpainter>
  
  #include <qtimer>
  
  
  
  class Helper;
  
  
  
  class GLWidget : public QOpenGLWidget, public FrameListener
  
  {
  
      Q_OBJECT
  
  
  
  public:
  
      GLWidget(std::string camId, CamUtils *cUtils, int width, int height, bool denyFullScreen_ = false, bool detectFlag_=false, QWidget* parent = nullptr);
  
      void killStream();
  
      ~GLWidget();
  
  
  
  public slots:
  
      void animate();
  
      void setBufferEnabled(bool setState);
  
      void setCameraRetryConnection(bool setState);
  
      void GLUpdate();            // Call to update the widget
  
      void onRightClickMenu(const QPoint&amp; point);
  
  
  
  protected:
  
      void paintEvent(QPaintEvent* event) override;
  
      void onPNewFrame(dPacket* frame);
  
      void onNotification(int alert_code);
  
  
  
  
  
  private:
  
      // Objects and resourses
  
      Helper* helper;
  
      Camera* cam;
  
      CamUtils* camUtils;
  
      QTimer* timer; // Keep track of update
  
      QPixmap lastImage;
  
      QMovie* connMov;
  
      QMovie* test;
  
  
  
      QPixmap logo;
  
  
  
      // Control fields
  
      int width;
  
      int height;
  
      int camUtilsAddr;
  
      int elapsed;
  
      std::thread* camThread;
  
      std::string camId;
  
      bool denyFullScreen = false;
  
      bool playing = true;
  
      bool streaming = true;
  
      bool debug = false;
  
      bool connecting = true;
  
      int lastFlag = 0;
  
  
  
  
  
      // Debug fields
  
      std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::time_point lastFrameAt;
  
      std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::time_point now;
  
      std::chrono::duration<double> painTime; // time took to draw last frame
  
  
  
      //Buffer stuff
  
      std::queue<qpixmap> buffer;
  
      bool bufferEnabled = false;
  
      bool initialBuffer = false;
  
      bool buffering = true;
  
      bool frameProcessing = false;
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
      //Functions
  
      QImage toQImageFromPMat(cv::Mat* inFrame);
  
      void mousePressEvent(QMouseEvent* event) override;
  
      void drawImageGLLatest(QPainter* painter, QPaintEvent* event, int elapsed);
  
      void drawOnPaused(QPainter* painter, QPaintEvent* event, int elapsed);
  
      void drawOnStatus(int statusFlag, QPainter* painter, QPaintEvent* event, int elapsed);
  
  };
  
  
  
  #endif
  
  
  
  </qpixmap></double></qtimer></qpainter></iostream></qmovie></ctime></chrono></qmouseevent></qopenglwidget>

  GLWidget.cpp :

  #include "glwidget.h"
  
  #include <future>
  
  
  
  
  
  FullScreenVideo* fullScreen;
  
  
  
  GLWidget::GLWidget(std::string camId_, CamUtils* cUtils, int width_, int height_,  bool denyFullScreen_, bool detectFlag_, QWidget* parent)
  
      : QOpenGLWidget(parent), helper(helper)
  
  {
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "Player for CAMERA " &lt;&lt; camId_ &lt;&lt; endl;
  
  
  
      /* Underlying properties */
  
      camUtils = cUtils;
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "GLWidget Incoming CamUtils addr " &lt;&lt; camUtils &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "GLWidget Set CamUtils addr " &lt;&lt; camUtils &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      camId = camId_;
  
      elapsed = 0;
  
      width = width_ + 5;
  
      height = height_ + 5;
  
      helper = new Helper();
  
      setFixedSize(width, height);
  
      denyFullScreen = denyFullScreen_;
  
  
  
      /* Camera capture thread */
  
      cam = new Camera(camUtils->getCameraStreamURL(camId), width_, height_, detectFlag_);
  
      cam->addListener(this);
  
  
  
      /* Sync states */
  
      vector<bool> initState = cam->getState();
  
      playing = initState[0];
  
      streaming = initState[1];
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "Initial states: " &lt;&lt; playing &lt;&lt; " " &lt;&lt; streaming &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      camThread = new std::thread(&amp;Camera::stream, cam);
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "================================================" &lt;&lt; endl;
  
  
  
      // Right click set up
  
      setContextMenuPolicy(Qt::CustomContextMenu);
  
  
  
  
  
      /* Loading gif */
  
      connMov = new QMovie("establishingConnection.gif");
  
      connMov->start();
  
      QString url = R"(RLC-logo.png)";
  
      logo = QPixmap(url);
  
      QTimer* timer = new QTimer(this);
  
      connect(timer, SIGNAL(timeout()), this, SLOT(GLUpdate()));
  
      timer->start(1000/30);
  
      playing = true;
  
  
  
  }
  
  
  
  /* SYSTEM */
  
  void GLWidget::animate()
  
  {
  
      elapsed = (elapsed + qobject_cast(sender())->interval()) % 1000;
  
      std::cout &lt;&lt; elapsed &lt;&lt; "\n";
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::GLUpdate() {
  
      /* Process descisions before update call */
  
      if (bufferEnabled) {
  
          /* Process buffer before update */
  
          now = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
  
          std::chrono::duration timeSinceLastUpdate = now - lastFrameAt;
  
          if (timeSinceLastUpdate.count() > 25) {
  
              if (buffer.size() > 1 &amp;&amp; playing) {
  
                  lastImage.swap(buffer.front());
  
                  buffer.pop();
  
                  lastFrameAt = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
  
              }
  
          }
  
          //update(); // Update
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          /* No buffer */
  
      }
  
      repaint();
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  /* EVENTS */
  
  void GLWidget::onRightClickMenu(const QPoint&amp; point) {
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "Right click request got" &lt;&lt; endl;
  
  
  
      QPoint globPos = this->mapToGlobal(point);
  
      QMenu myMenu;
  
  
  
      if (!denyFullScreen) {
  
          myMenu.addAction("Open Full Screen");
  
      }
  
      myMenu.addAction("Toggle Debug Info");
  
  
  
  
  
      QAction* selected = myMenu.exec(globPos);
  
  
  
      if (selected) {
  
          string optiontxt = selected->text().toStdString();
  
  
  
          if (optiontxt == "Open Full Screen") {
  
              cout &lt;&lt; "Chose to open full screen of " &lt;&lt; camId &lt;&lt; endl;
  
              fullScreen = new FullScreenVideo(bufferEnabled, this);
  
              fullScreen->setUpView(camUtils, camId);
  
              fullScreen->show();
  
              playing = false;
  
          }
  
  
  
          if (optiontxt == "Toggle Debug Info") {
  
              cout &lt;&lt; "Chose to toggle debug of " &lt;&lt; camId &lt;&lt; endl;
  
              debug = !debug;
  
          }
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          cout &lt;&lt; "Chose nothing!" &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      }
  
  
  
  
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::onPNewFrame(dPacket* inPack) {
  
      lastFlag = 0;
  
  
  
      if (bufferEnabled) {
  
          buffer.push(QPixmap::fromImage(toQImageFromPMat(inPack->frame)));
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          if (playing) {
  
              /* Only process if this widget is playing */
  
              frameProcessing = true;
  
              lastImage.convertFromImage(toQImageFromPMat(inPack->frame));
  
              frameProcessing = false;
  
          }
  
      }
  
  
  
      if (lastFlag != -1 &amp;&amp; !lastImage.isNull()) {
  
          connecting = false;
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          connecting = true;
  
      }
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::onNotification(int alert) {
  
      lastFlag = alert;   
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  /* Paint events*/
  
  
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::paintEvent(QPaintEvent* event)
  
  {
  
      QPainter painter(this);
  
  
  
          if (lastFlag != 0 || connecting) {
  
              drawOnStatus(lastFlag, &amp;painter, event, elapsed);
  
          }
  
          else {
  
  
  
              /* Actual frame drawing */
  
              if (playing) {
  
                  if (!frameProcessing) {
  
                      drawImageGLLatest(&amp;painter, event, elapsed);
  
                  }
  
              }
  
              else {
  
                  drawOnPaused(&amp;painter, event, elapsed);
  
              }
  
          }
  
      painter.end();
  
  
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  /* DRAWING STUFF */
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::drawOnStatus(int statusFlag, QPainter* bgPaint, QPaintEvent* event, int elapsed) {
  
  
  
      QString str;
  
      QFont font("times", 15);
  
      bgPaint->eraseRect(QRect(0, 0, width, height));
  
      if (!lastImage.isNull()) {
  
          bgPaint->drawPixmap(QRect(0, 0, width, height), lastImage);
  
      }
  
      /* Test background painting */
  
      if (connecting) {
  
          string k = "Connecting to " + camUtils->getIp(camId);
  
          str.append(k.c_str());
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          switch (statusFlag) {
  
          case 1:
  
              str = "Blank frame received...";
  
              break;
  
  
  
          case -1:
  
              if (cam->getReconnectable()) {
  
                  str = "Connection lost, will try to reconnect.";
  
                  bgPaint->setOpacity(0.3);
  
              }
  
              else {
  
                  str = "Connection lost...";
  
                  bgPaint->setOpacity(0.3);
  
              }
  
  
  
              break;
  
          }
  
      }
  
  
  
      bgPaint->drawPixmap(QRect(0, 0, width, height), QPixmap::fromImage(connMov->currentImage()));
  
      bgPaint->setPen(Qt::red);
  
      bgPaint->setFont(font);
  
      QFontMetrics fm(font);
  
      const QRect kek(0, 0, fm.width(str), fm.height());
  
      QRect bound;
  
      bgPaint->setOpacity(1);
  
      bgPaint->drawText(bgPaint->viewport().width()/2 - kek.width()/2, bgPaint->viewport().height()/2 - kek.height(), str);
  
  
  
      bgPaint->drawPixmap(bgPaint->viewport().width() / 2 - logo.width()/2, height - logo.width() - 15, logo);
  
  
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::drawOnPaused(QPainter* painter, QPaintEvent* event, int elapsed) {
  
      painter->eraseRect(0, 0, width, height);
  
      QFont font = painter->font();
  
      font.setPointSize(18);
  
      painter->setPen(Qt::red);
  
      QFontMetrics fm(font);
  
      QString str("Paused");
  
      painter->drawPixmap(QRect(0, 0, width, height),lastImage);
  
      painter->drawText(QPoint(painter->viewport().width() - fm.width(str), 50), str);
  
  
  
      if (debug) {
  
          QFont font = painter->font();
  
          font.setPointSize(25);
  
          painter->setPen(Qt::red);
  
          string camMess = "CAMID: " + camId;
  
          QString mess(camMess.c_str());
  
          string camIp = "IP: " + camUtils->getIp(camId);
  
          QString ipMess(camIp.c_str());
  
          QString bufferSize("Buffer size: " + QString::number(buffer.size()));
  
          QString lastFrameText("Last frame draw time: " + QString::number(painTime.count()) + "s");
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 50), mess);
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 60), ipMess);
  
          QString bufferState;
  
          if (bufferEnabled) {
  
              bufferState = QString("Experimental BUFFER is enabled!");
  
              QString currentBufferSize("Current buffer load: " + QString::number(buffer.size()));
  
              painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 80), currentBufferSize);
  
          }
  
          else {
  
              bufferState = QString("Experimental BUFFER is disabled!");
  
          }
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 70), bufferState);
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, height - 25), lastFrameText);
  
      }
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::drawImageGLLatest(QPainter* painter, QPaintEvent* event, int elapsed) {
  
      auto start = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
  
      painter->drawPixmap(QRect(0, 0, width, height), lastImage);
  
      if (debug) {
  
          QFont font = painter->font();
  
          font.setPointSize(25);
  
          painter->setPen(Qt::red);
  
          string camMess = "CAMID: " + camId;
  
          QString mess(camMess.c_str());
  
          string camIp = "IP: " + camUtils->getIp(camId);
  
          QString ipMess(camIp.c_str());
  
          QString bufferSize("Buffer size: " + QString::number(buffer.size()));
  
          QString lastFrameText("Last frame draw time: " + QString::number(painTime.count()) + "s");
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 50), mess);
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 60), ipMess);
  
          QString bufferState;
  
          if(bufferEnabled){
  
              bufferState = QString("Experimental BUFFER is enabled!");
  
              QString currentBufferSize("Current buffer load: " + QString::number(buffer.size()));
  
              painter->drawText(QPoint(10,80), currentBufferSize);
  
          }
  
          else {
  
              bufferState = QString("Experimental BUFFER is disabled!");
  
              QString currentBufferSize("Current buffer load: " + QString::number(buffer.size()));
  
              painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 80), currentBufferSize);
  
          }
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, 70), bufferState);
  
          painter->drawText(QPoint(10, height - 25), lastFrameText);
  
  
  
      }
  
      auto end = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
  
      painTime = end - start;
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  /* END DRAWING STUFF */
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  /* UI EVENTS */
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::mousePressEvent(QMouseEvent* e) {
  
  
  
      if (e->button() == Qt::LeftButton) {
  
          if (fullScreen == nullptr || !fullScreen->isVisible()) { // Do not unpause if window is opened
  
              playing = !playing;
  
          }
  
      }
  
  
  
      if (e->button() == Qt::RightButton) {
  
          onRightClickMenu(e->pos());
  
      }
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  /* Utilities */
  
  QImage GLWidget::toQImageFromPMat(cv::Mat* mat) {
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
      return QImage(mat->data, mat->cols, mat->rows, QImage::Format_RGB888).rgbSwapped();
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  }
  
  
  
  /* State control */
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::killStream() {
  
      cam->killStream();
  
      camThread->join();
  
  }
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::setBufferEnabled(bool newBufferState) {
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "Player: " &lt;&lt; camId &lt;&lt; ", buffer state updated: " &lt;&lt; newBufferState &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      bufferEnabled = newBufferState;
  
      buffer.empty();
  
  }
  
  
  
  void GLWidget::setCameraRetryConnection(bool newState) {
  
      cam->setReconnectable(newState);
  
  }
  
  
  
  /* Destruction */
  
  GLWidget::~GLWidget() {
  
      cam->killStream();
  
      camThread->join();
  
  }
  
  </bool></future>

  CamUtils.h :

  #pragma once
  
  #include <iostream>
  
  #include <vector>
  
  #include <fstream>
  
  #include <map>
  
  #include <string>
  
  #include <sstream>
  
  #include <algorithm>
  
  #include <nlohmann></nlohmann>json.hpp>
  
  
  
  using namespace std;
  
  using json = nlohmann::json;
  
  
  
  class CamUtils
  
  {
  
  private:
  
  
  
      string camDb = "cameras.dViewer";
  
      map> cameraList; // Legacy
  
      json cameras;
  
      ofstream dbFile;
  
      bool dbExists(); // Always hard coded
  
  
  
      /* Old IMPLEMENTATION */
  
      void writeLineToDb_(const string&amp; content, bool append = false);
  
      void loadCameras_();
  
  
  
      /* JSON based */
  
      void loadCameras();
  
  
  
  public:
  
      CamUtils();
  
      string generateRandomString(size_t length);
  
      string getCameraStreamURL(string cameraId) const;
  
      string saveCamera(string ip, string username, string pass); // Return generated id
  
      vector<string> listAllCameraIds();
  
      string getIp(string cameraId);
  
  };
  
  
  
  
  
  </string></algorithm></sstream></string></map></fstream></vector></iostream>

  CamUtils.cpp :

  #include "CamUtils.h"
  
  #pragma comment(lib, "rpcrt4.lib")  // UuidCreate - Minimum supported OS Win 2000
  
  #include 
  
  #include <iostream>
  
  
  
  CamUtils::CamUtils()
  
  {
  
      if (!dbExists()) {
  
          ofstream dbFile;
  
          dbFile.open(camDb);
  
          cameras["cameras"] = json::array();
  
          dbFile &lt;&lt; cameras &lt;&lt; std::endl;
  
          dbFile.close();
  
  
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          loadCameras();
  
      }
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  vector<string> CamUtils::listAllCameraIds() {
  
      vector<string> ids;
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "IN LIST " &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      for (auto&amp; cam : cameras["cameras"]) {
  
          ids.push_back(cam["id"].get<string>());
  
          //cout &lt;&lt; cam["id"].get<string>() &lt;&lt; std::endl;
  
      }
  
      return ids;
  
  }
  
  
  
  string CamUtils::getIp(string id) {
  
      vector<string> camDetails = cameraList[id];
  
      string ip = "NO IP WILL DISPLAYED UNTIL I FIGURE OUT A BUG";
  
      for (auto&amp; cam : cameras["cameras"]) {
  
          if (id == cam["id"]) {
  
              ip = cam["ip"].get<string>();
  
          }
  
      }
  
  
  
      return ip;
  
  }
  
  
  
  string CamUtils::getCameraStreamURL(string id) const {
  
      string url = "err"; // err is the default, it will be overwritten in case id is found, dont forget to check for it
  
  
  
      for (auto&amp; cam : cameras["cameras"]) {
  
          if (id == cam["id"]) {
  
              if (cam["username"].get<string>() == "null") {
  
                  url = "rtsp://" + cam["ip"].get<string>() + ":554/axis-media/media.amp?tcp";
  
              }
  
              else {
  
                  url = "rtsp://" + cam["username"].get<string>() + ":" + cam["password"].get<string>() + "@" + cam["ip"].get<string>() + ":554/axis-media/media.amp?streamprofile=720_30";
  
              }
  
          }
  
      }
  
  
  
      return url;  // Dont forget to check for err when using this shit
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  string CamUtils::saveCamera(string ip, string username, string password) {
  
      UUID uid;
  
      UuidCreate(&amp;uid);
  
      char* str;
  
      UuidToStringA(&amp;uid, (RPC_CSTR*)&amp;str);
  
      string id = str;
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "GEN: " &lt;&lt; id &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      json cam = json({}); //Create emtpy object
  
      cam["id"] = id;
  
      cam["ip"] = ip;
  
      cam["username"] = username;
  
      cam["password"] = password;
  
      cameras["cameras"].push_back(cam);
  
      std::ofstream out(camDb);
  
      out &lt;&lt; cameras &lt;&lt; std::endl;
  
      cout &lt;&lt; cameras["cameras"] &lt;&lt; endl;
  
  
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "Saved camera as " &lt;&lt; id &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      return id;
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  bool CamUtils::dbExists() {
  
      ifstream dbFile(camDb);
  
      return (bool)dbFile;
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  void CamUtils::loadCameras() {
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "Load call" &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      ifstream dbFile(camDb);
  
      string line;
  
      string wholeFile;
  
  
  
      while (std::getline(dbFile, line)) {
  
          cout &lt;&lt; line &lt;&lt; endl;
  
          wholeFile += line;
  
      }
  
      try {
  
          cameras = json::parse(wholeFile);
  
          //cout &lt;&lt; cameras["cameras"] &lt;&lt; endl;
  
  
  
      }
  
      catch (exception e) {
  
          cout &lt;&lt; e.what() &lt;&lt; endl;
  
      }
  
      dbFile.close();
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  /*
  
      LEGACY CODE, TO BE REMOVED!
  
  
  
  */
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  void CamUtils::loadCameras_() {
  
      /* 
  
          LEGACY CODE:
  
          This used to be the way to load cameras, but I moved on to JSON based configuration so this is no longer needed and will be removed soon
  
      */
  
  
  
      ifstream dbFile(camDb);
  
      string line;
  
      while (std::getline(dbFile, line)) {
  
          /*
  
              This function load camera data to the map:
  
              The order MUST be the following: 0:ID, 1:IP, 2:USERNAME, 3:PASSWORD.
  
              Always delimited with | no spaces between!
  
          */
  
          if (!line.empty()) {
  
              stringstream ss(line);
  
              string item;
  
              vector<string> splitString;
  
  
  
              while (std::getline(ss, item, '|')) {
  
                  splitString.push_back(item);
  
              }
  
              if (splitString.size() > 0) {
  
                  /* Dont even parse if the program didnt split right*/
  
                  //cout &lt;&lt; "Split string: " &lt;&lt; splitString.size() &lt;&lt; "\n";
  
                  for (int i = 0; i &lt; (splitString.size()); i++) cameraList[splitString[0]].push_back(splitString[i]);
  
              }
  
          }
  
      }
  
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  void CamUtils::writeLineToDb_(const string &amp; content, bool append) {
  
      ofstream dbFile;
  
      cout &lt;&lt; "Creating?";
  
      if (append) {
  
          dbFile.open(camDb, ios_base::app);
  
      }
  
      else {
  
          dbFile.open(camDb);
  
      }
  
  
  
      dbFile &lt;&lt; content.c_str() &lt;&lt; "\r\n";
  
      dbFile.flush();
  
  }
  
  
  
  /* JSON Reworx */
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  string CamUtils::generateRandomString(size_t length)
  
  {
  
      const char* charmap = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
  
      const size_t charmapLength = strlen(charmap);
  
      auto generator = [&amp;]() { return charmap[rand() % charmapLength]; };
  
      string result;
  
      result.reserve(length);
  
      generate_n(back_inserter(result), length, generator);
  
      return result;
  
  }
  
  </string></string></string></string></string></string></string></string></string></string></string></string></iostream>

  End of example

  How would I go about decreasing CPU usage when dealing with large amount of streams ?