Alliance for Open Media codecs

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by SmilingWolf

Is there any particular reason DXVA Checker grays out the CPU usage line when I try to do the benchmarks? Is there some option I need to set?

You only have to run the benchmark (I run it 3 times and take the average) and for every run you will see at the end the CPU usage.
It has also min/avg/max value, even for CPU usage.
Just leave it to finish.

[SmilingWolf]

Yeah I tried doing that and it didn't work, see screenshots

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by SmilingWolf

Yeah I tried doing that and it didn't work, see screenshots

Ok, you have to go to LAV filters settings and choose SW decoding.
It seems to me that you are using HW decoding.

[SmilingWolf]

I did wonder if that was the case, but when I open LAVFilters' config panel this is what I see:


Fresh installation, nothing touched

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by SmilingWolf

Fresh installation, nothing touched

Latest DXVA Checker v4.2.1 and Connect to Renderer selected ?
Also, when you select the AV1 file, does LAV say unsupported inside DXVA Checker ?

[SmilingWolf]

Latest DXVA Checker v4.2.1, system equipped with a GTX1080 (440.97).

It says Unsupported, yes.

This version does not seem to have a "Connect to Renderer" option anywhere.

[SmilingWolf]

Originally Posted by NikosD

Ok, but SmilingWolf and you, have tested different things than me.
Firstly, he posted single threaded performance difference and I posted multi-threaded performance difference

Conveniently forgetting about my two posts dedicated to multi threaded performance aren't we?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...74#post1889274
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...89#post1889289

There isn't a DXVA Checker report yet, afternoon spent trying to make it work notwithstanding, but as I said, CPU utilization goes between 70% and 90% with the two sequences used.

[littleD]

Some older versions of dxva checker shows CPU usage. But i did short test and the results of dxch was around 88% utilization while system monitor was showing 100%. Maybe thats why authors of the program turned off the feature temporarily, because of inconsistent results?

[SmilingWolf]

I'd love to keep arguing, but I have to agree that won't make the board any favor, so let's let bygones be bygones.

I have already removed all sorts of config files, fresh installations, even reboots etc.
Have you run your own benches on this (4.2.1) version, or on an older one? If the latter happens to be the case, what exact version, so I can download it from the VideoHelp archive?

I don't get what you mean by "no internal commands". They are cmdline applications, just use the same cmdlines I used. I was inside an MSYS shell just so that I could use the "time" command, but I suppose PowerShell on Win10 has got something similar.
Word of advice, they only digest pure IVF files, so at least the Dua Lipa video will have to be freed of its container using "ffmpeg -i Dua_Lipa.mp4 -c:v copy Dua_Lipa.ivf"

[NikosD]

I'm not a developer, so environments like MSYS , Visual Studio etc are not frequently installed on my system.
I have compiled a few apps from time to time, even my own code decades ago (!) but I'm not going to do it now setting up MSYS.
I'll give PowerShell a try of course, as I use it from time to time for my job (although I still do a lot using cmd)
But that IVF thing is another obstacle.
Regarding DXVA Checker I used v4.2.1 which of course has everything, as I told you before.
Min/avg/max for FPS and CPU utilization.
Your main problem is that you see things like Video Engine and GPU utilization and you shouldn't.
You need a cleaner OS.
Tomorrow I'll try setting LAV to single-thread mode and run the same tests with Skylake at work.
If nobody here in this forum can confirm or reject my multi-thread results using so familiar tools like LAV filters and DXVA Checker, I'll try to reproduce yours single-thread results.

P.S
DXVA Checker is a sophisticated and accurate tool and the CPU utilization refers to itself only, as a process, not general CPU utilization during its running.

[nevcairiel]

Comparisons between LAV 0.74.1 and later nightly versions are flawed since the threading strategy changed in FFmpeg, which resulted in 0.74.1 using more frame threads then the later nightlies, making 0.74.1 artificially faster. As such, all your results are invalidated.
This is why you should use as little software as possible to do benchmarking (ie. go as close to the core as possible), as you never know what changes might interfer with your conclusions.

I've also once again changed the thread distribution in 0.74.1-30 from last night, and while its going to use more threads again now, similar to the old logic, its not going to be identical to 0.74.1 in all cases (because I added more tile threads on high core-count CPUs)

[Mr_Khyron]

AOMedia Research Symposium 2019 Videos
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...wewtWKpxXky8iI

[utack]

Originally Posted by marcomsousa

Lesson learnt from WebP

There are only two I can think of

• despite being technically more advanced you can still lose to a decades old legacy format when your encoder is terrible
• it does not matter that your format is worse than the legacy competition, if you claim that it is better often enough others will start parroting it and adopt it

Seriously the only area where it might be a tiny bit better is for ultra-high compression where it does not start falling apart as badly as jpeg, for any sane (mid ot high) image quality range the vast array of jpeg encoders are doing a significantly better job of retaining detail

[dapperdan]

Webp had some other benefits over JPEG outside of compressing photographic images.


JPEG XL seems like WebP's successor in this regard. It's targeted at lots of pain points that would make it a good choice to replace JPEG (and PNG and GiF) on the web and in the browser even if it didn't beat JPEG on compression, though it claims that as well. And maybe the JPEG name will help, though that doesn't seem to have benefitted anyone but the original JPEG.

Not sure there's room for AVIF and JPEG XL but maybe they have subtly different niches.

[dapperdan]

Ronald's slide showing 4 AV1 encoders all scaling well seems like an improvement from his slide at BIG Apple Video where only SVT seemed to be managing that, with Eve just behind and Rav1e and libaom trailing.

Not sure it it's a direct comparison to the earlier slide but if it is then things should be a lot better for AV1 when cores are available.

[soresu]

Originally Posted by dapperdan

Ronald's slide showing 4 AV1 encoders all scaling well seems like an improvement from his slide at BIG Apple Video where only SVT seemed to be managing that, with Eve just behind and Rav1e and libaom trailing.

Not sure it it's a direct comparison to the earlier slide but if it is then things should be a lot better for AV1 when cores are available.

An interesting point Ronald made implies that AV1 has an intrinsic parallel scaling limitation due to an oversight during the encoder development (12:20 in the video), something to do with superblock boundaries.

Hopefully a lesson learned for AV2 efforts going forward.

[marcomsousa]

Rav1e release 0.1.0
First official release, published during the Video Dev Days 2019 in Tokyo.

Features

• Intra and inter frames
• 64x64 superblocks
• 4x4 to 64x64 RDO-selected square and 2:1/1:2 rectangular blocks
• DC, H, V, Paeth, smooth, and a subset of directional prediction modes
• DCT, (FLIP-)ADST and identity transforms (up to 64x64, 16x16 and 32x32 respectively)
• 8-, 10- and 12-bit depth color
• 4:2:0 (full support), 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 (limited) chroma sampling
• 11 speed settings (0-10)
• Near real-time encoding at high speed levels
• Rate control (single-pass and two-pass)
• Temporal RDO
• Scene cut detection
• CLI tool and C API

https://github.com/xiph/rav1e/releases/tag/0.1.0

[mzso]

Hi!
Are there any AV1 videos on youtube besides the beta playlist? So far I haven't found any.

[marcomsousa]

Originally Posted by mzso

Hi!
Are there any AV1 videos on youtube besides the beta playlist? So far I haven't found any.

Almost all top videos, but only in low resolutions.

[mzso]

Originally Posted by marcomsousa

Almost all top videos, but only in low resolutions.

Thanks. Well, I guess I won't be coming across many then. I don't watch stuff like that, and it looks like a few million views are far from enough. A 4+ billion Ed Sheeran song had it up to to 2160p, but a 2+ billion Taylor swift song only has it up to 720p. I managed to find some Wired videos with a couple million views, that have AV1 though.

It seems like Firefox's (well, Waterfox's to be accurate) AV1 decoding is quite poor. MPV's (after upgrading) and LAV's seem to be a lot better, no hangs or stutter.