Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > New and alternative video codecs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 5th September 2012, 18:29   #1  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,922
Google VP9 "Next Generation Open Video" information posted

I attended Google's "Next Generation Open Video" summit back in July. They've now posted links to the presentations from that.
NGOV Product Requirements (M. Frost / J. Luther, 68kB PDF)
WebM Product Updates
WebM Update (J. Bankoski, HTML5-format)
WebM Adoption (J. Luther, 137kB PDF)
NGOV Project Update (P. Wilkins, 1.2MB PDF)
Comparative Visualizations (P. Wilkins, HTML5-format)
WebM Contribution Process (J. Koleszar, 1.2MB 1.2MB PDF)
NGOV in Hardware (A. Kuusela, 180kB PDF)
Further Video Use Cases (H. Finnan, 601kB PDF)
WebP Still Image (P. Massimino, 697kB PDF)
The two HTML5 links aren't working correctly for me.

There's plenty of interesting ideas in there. I do think that they need to clearly define Levels, which wasn't then on their roadmap.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2012, 04:23   #2  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 732
Quote:
In VP8 temporal layers use the Golden and Alt-Ref frames so that they cannot be used for boosting compression efficiency. An easy solution would be to add more alt-refs.
I like how they see that it needs b-frames and h.264-style multiple references, but seem to not be permitted to say that. :3
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2012, 10:12   #3  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 897
"Reduce video bitrate by 50% with image quality comparable to VP8 (SSIM, PSNR)."

This to me says they aren't looking to increase the video quality just reduce the bandwidth? 50% lower bandwidth than webm isn't as good as hevc is in quality terms.

Google should just joing forces with mozilla and xiph and help with Daala video codec development. It says that NGOV must work on core i5 processors that are out in Q3 2013, so presumably NGOV won't be out atleast until then.

Last edited by hajj_3; 6th September 2012 at 11:21.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2012, 13:12   #4  |  Link
sneaker_ger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
This to me says they aren't looking to increase the video quality just reduce the bandwidth?
"Increasing video quality" and "reducing bandwidth" are the same thing.
sneaker_ger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2012, 15:57   #5  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneaker_ger View Post
"Increasing video quality" and "reducing bandwidth" are the same thing.
And, relevant to veterans of VPx, they are also working to increase maximum quality of the NGOV codec to support visually lossless encoding, which wasn't always possible with earlier versions. So they should be able to support higher quality than was possible before.

I had the odd realization that I'd been working with the TrueMotion/VPx codecs and their developers for years longer than anyone currently working on the project! The last guy who was at Duck when I had my first business meeting with them left four years ago...
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2012, 15:56   #6  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 752
I stopped reading when they said VP8 was better then H264. Obviously they didn't use x264 encoder. And yes, if they should join force with the Daala codec development.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 15:57   #7  |  Link
SassBot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Apparently when On2 was bought, Google made sure to bring along their marketeers as well. It is laughable that they still try to claim VP8 is superior to H.264. As was noted when VP8 first came out, they basically gimped the output to make VP8 look better and then threw in a bunch of fancy looking graphs to "prove" how great it was.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 17:20   #8  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwod View Post
I stopped reading when they said VP8 was better then H264. Obviously they didn't use x264 encoder. And yes, if they should join force with the Daala codec development.
I asked about that. This is actually a comparison with x264 and VP8 when encoding for YouTube. However, I believe they were comparing PSNR. x264 by default, and when used appropriately, rather pointedly doesn't tune for PSNR, but for perceptual quality.

The current VP8 encoders are very much tuned for PSNR; althogh I think they have implemented an SSIM tuning mode recently.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if when looking for the bitrate that gives the same PSNR between a typical x264 setting and a typical VP8 setting, VP8 would need a somewhat lower bitrate. However, I don't find that a particularly interesting comparison.

The Google people certainly spoke about the importance of tuning for perceptual quality, not just PSNR and SSIM. But at that point in NGOV codec work, it didn't sound like they'd done that much perceptual tuning yet. Which isn't unreasonable at an early stage of codec development; I doubt that much percuptual tuning has been done for HEVC implementations yet either.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 17:33   #9  |  Link
smok3
brontosaurusrex
 
smok3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,395
some suggestions:
0 - make it easy for a user to actually use it properly (One-fits-all approach will not help here), "nvob -good and film file.mov -o file.gov" should be my default
0 - make it not suck like vp8
__________________
certain other member
smok3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 17:50   #10  |  Link
SassBot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
I asked about that. This is actually a comparison with x264 and VP8 when encoding for YouTube.
So basically just another gimped comparison. The fact that they could get x264 output to look so poorly on Youtube seems to be quite a feat unto itself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 17:56   #11  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by SassBot View Post
So basically just another gimped comparison. The fact that they could get x264 output to look so poorly on Youtube seems to be quite a feat unto itself.
Oh, the people who make the x264 settings for YouTube know and care about what they're doing, and certainly aren't gimping anything. I think most YouTube quality issues are due to source issues. When I've tested with difficult content in pristine quality, they've produced reasonably good quality for those bitrates and encoding times.

Not what I could have hand-tuned on my own with a lot more CPU cycles, but their business is going to care a lot about picojoules per pixel!
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 18:01   #12  |  Link
SassBot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
While they may not have intentionally done so, the output still looked worse, yes even with high quality source, than anything I was able to do locally. This wasn't using some command string where I turned every knob thinking I was doing something magical, but simply just using the --preset and --tune system. Google could also easily afford to use more CPU cycles than I can.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 19:07   #13  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,626
Ah but how would Google decide which --tune to use? Also while they could afford it each CPU cycle costs money which they could be keeping, and remember they are encoding really a lot of video.
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 19:42   #14  |  Link
SassBot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Ah but how would Google decide which --tune to use?
They don't need to. Just use the fast decode tune like I was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Also while they could afford it each CPU cycle costs money which they could be keeping, and remember they are encoding really a lot of video.
Sure, but I was using the faster presets. If I was comparing their output versus using veryslow then sure that would be an absurd comparison. Considering the immense amount of capacity they have they could easily afford to use slower presets than I did especially with the clip length limits of 15 minutes and the fact that most clips are far shorter than that.

Last edited by SassBot; 11th September 2012 at 19:47.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 20:15   #15  |  Link
vivan
/人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Russia
Posts: 649
Looks like they messed up some graphs.
E.g. youtube doesn't use WebM for 480p. Also checked 10 random popular videos - for 360p resoultion youtube used 16-18% higher bitrate for WebM in all of them. And from 2 to hilarious 121% for 720p. Lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
I think most YouTube quality issues are due to source issues.
And what about vimeo? What magic are they using, so their encoding is so much better?

Last edited by vivan; 11th September 2012 at 20:18.
vivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2012, 22:11   #16  |  Link
Bloax
The speed of stupid
 
Bloax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 319
Well too bad they absolutely insist on recoding every single x264 video so that it looks absolutely stunning.

Or well, You go compare the youtube version to the Original video.

Of course I was very generous with bitrate on this one, but it's not like I can't get a fine looking video at half the size.
(Merely, it's because I actually wanted to try and avoid argh quality on Youtube.)
Bloax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2012, 19:26   #17  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 22
VP-Next renamed to VP9, update on current progress

There is an updated (2012-11-04) document about VP-Next: Overview of VP-Next - Objectives & Progress. This is the Google presentation for the first video-codec IETF working group (2012-11-05).

Also, on the libvpx experimental git branch, VP-Next was definitively renamed to VP9.

The last slide of the PDF has current status:
Attached Images
 

Last edited by oibaf; 24th November 2012 at 06:11. Reason: fix double image
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2012, 14:58   #18  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 752
I mean why compare a Company Backed Resources Heavy Tuned Encoder to a Video Standard Codec's Reference Encoder? I bet x264 would have beaten the HEVC reference encoder as well.

Heck, when H.264 first came out it didn't even touch xvid in terms of quality.

This whole thing is still very On2. Very unlike Google. Not that i like Google at all but i would have thought there will be less BS and more Engineering.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2012, 13:12   #19  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 22
There are two new branches on libvpx git: vp9-preview and pcs-2013 (this last one seems a showcase for Picture Coding Symposium 2013?).
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 15:04   #20  |  Link
Kurtnoise
Swallowed in the Sea
 
Kurtnoise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aix-en-Provence, France
Posts: 5,183
Wanna test VP9 compressor ?

In addition, Chromium has added VP9 support few days ago, including Opus as Audio Codec...

Last edited by Kurtnoise; 21st December 2012 at 15:24.
Kurtnoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
google, ngov, vp8, vp9, vpx, webm

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:53.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.