DOCSLIB.ORG

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT Maqlaqsyalank Hemyeega Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Dupris, Joseph James Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 11:41:53 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/582372 MAQLAQSYALANK HEMYEEGA by Joseph James Dupris ____________________________ Copyright © Joseph James Dupris 2015 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2015 1 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: Joseph James Dupris APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: Stacey Oberly Date Professor of Linguistics 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank my faculty adviser Stacey Oberly for her valued comments and continuing support. I would like to thank my family and friends who continue to enrich, nourish, house and encourage me each step of my journey. 3 DEDICATION To maqlaqs everywhere. 4 Table of Contents 0. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10 1. Language Information ...................................................................................................... 12 1.1. Language Family ...........................................................................................................12 1.2. Dialects ...........................................................................................................................12 1.3. Status of Language .........................................................................................................13 1.3.1. Contexts of Use ................................................................................................... 14 1.3.2. Viability ............................................................................................................... 14 1.4. Loan Words .....................................................................................................................15 1.5. Previous Research ...........................................................................................................16 2. Language Community Information .................................................................................. 18 2.1 Tribal History ..................................................................................................................18 2.2. Tribal Government ......................................................................................................... 19 2.3. Sociolinguistic Situation ................................................................................................ 20 3. Orthography ........................................................................................................................ 22 3.1. Orthographic History & Development ............................................................................22 3.2. Albert S. Gatschet 1890 Orthography .............................................................................23 3.3. Phillip (M.A.R.) Barker 1963 Orthography ....................................................................25 3.4. Klamath Tribes 1999 Orthography .................................................................................27 3.5. 2015 Revision ..................................................................................................................29 4. Sound System ...................................................................................................................... 33 4.1. Obstruent Consonants .....................................................................................................33 4.1.1. Stops ..................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1.1. Unaspirated Stops ........................................................................................ 34 4.1.1.2. Aspirated Stops ............................................................................................ 37 4.1.1.3. Ejectives ...................................................................................................... 38 4.1.1.4. Glottal Stop .................................................................................................. 39 4.1.2. Affricates .............................................................................................................. 39 4.1.2.1. Unaspirated Affricate .................................................................................. 39 4.1.2.2. Aspirated Affricate ...................................................................................... 40 4.1.2.3. Ejective Affricate ........................................................................................ 40 4.1.3. Fricatives .............................................................................................................. 41 4.1.3.1. Alveolar Fricative ........................................................................................ 41 4.1.3.2. Glottal Fricative ........................................................................................... 42 4.1.4, Obstruent Consonant Clusters .............................................................................. 42 4.2. Sonorant Consonants .......................................................................................................43 4.2.1. Nasals ................................................................................................................... 43 4.2.1.1. Voiced Nasals .............................................................................................. 44 4.2.1.2. Voiceless Nasals .......................................................................................... 44 4.2.1.3. Pre-Glottalized ............................................................................................. 45 4.2.2. Approximant Consonants ..................................................................................... 45 4.2.2.1. Voiced Approximants .................................................................................. 46 4.2.2.2. Voiceless Approximants .............................................................................. 47 4.2.2.3. Pre-Glottalized Approximants ..................................................................... 48 4.2.3. Sonorant Consonant Clusters ............................................................................... 48 5 4.3. Vowels .............................................................................................................................49 4.3.1. High Front Vowels ............................................................................................... 49 4.3.2. High Back Vowels ................................................................................................ 50 4.3.3. Low Front Vowels ................................................................................................ 50 4.3.4. Low Back Vowels ................................................................................................ 51 4.3.5. Dipthongs ............................................................................................................. 51 5. Morphology ......................................................................................................................... 53 5.1. Reduplication ..................................................................................................................53 5.1.1. Distributive {re} ................................................................................................... 54 5.1.2. Intensives .............................................................................................................. 55 5.2. Prefixes ............................................................................................................................56 5.3. Suffixes ............................................................................................................................59 5.3.1. Inner Suffixes ....................................................................................................... 59 5.3.2. Outer Suffixes ....................................................................................................... 61 6. Nouns .................................................................................................................................... 63 6.1. s-Class .............................................................................................................................63 6.2. s-less Class ......................................................................................................................64
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51
    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Summer 2017 Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51 Sherri M. Middleton Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Middleton, Sherri M., "Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51" (2017). All Master's Theses. 711. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/711 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARING A SURFACE COLLECTION TO AN EXCAVATED COLLECTION IN THE LOWER SKAGIT RIVER DELTA AT 45SK51 ________________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ________________________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Cultural and Environmental Resource Management _______________________________________________________________________ by Sherri Michelle Middleton June 2017 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the
    [Show full text]
  • Opus, a Free, High-Quality Speech and Audio Codec
    Opus, a free, high-quality speech and audio codec Jean-Marc Valin, Koen Vos, Timothy B. Terriberry, Gregory Maxwell 29 January 2014 Xiph.Org & Mozilla What is Opus? ● New highly-flexible speech and audio codec – Works for most audio applications ● Completely free – Royalty-free licensing – Open-source implementation ● IETF RFC 6716 (Sep. 2012) Xiph.Org & Mozilla Why a New Audio Codec? http://xkcd.com/927/ http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png Xiph.Org & Mozilla Why Should You Care? ● Best-in-class performance within a wide range of bitrates and applications ● Adaptability to varying network conditions ● Will be deployed as part of WebRTC ● No licensing costs ● No incompatible flavours Xiph.Org & Mozilla History ● Jan. 2007: SILK project started at Skype ● Nov. 2007: CELT project started ● Mar. 2009: Skype asks IETF to create a WG ● Feb. 2010: WG created ● Jul. 2010: First prototype of SILK+CELT codec ● Dec 2011: Opus surpasses Vorbis and AAC ● Sep. 2012: Opus becomes RFC 6716 ● Dec. 2013: Version 1.1 of libopus released Xiph.Org & Mozilla Applications and Standards (2010) Application Codec VoIP with PSTN AMR-NB Wideband VoIP/videoconference AMR-WB High-quality videoconference G.719 Low-bitrate music streaming HE-AAC High-quality music streaming AAC-LC Low-delay broadcast AAC-ELD Network music performance Xiph.Org & Mozilla Applications and Standards (2013) Application Codec VoIP with PSTN Opus Wideband VoIP/videoconference Opus High-quality videoconference Opus Low-bitrate music streaming Opus High-quality music streaming Opus Low-delay
    [Show full text]
  • Reduplicated Numerals in Salish. PUB DATE 1997-00-00 NOTE 11P.; for Complete Volume, See FL 025 251
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 419 409 FL 025 252 AUTHOR Anderson, Gregory D. S. TITLE Reduplicated Numerals in Salish. PUB DATE 1997-00-00 NOTE 11p.; For complete volume, see FL 025 251. PUB TYPE Journal Articles (080) Reports Research (143) JOURNAL CIT Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics; v22 n2 p1-10 1997 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *American Indian Languages; Contrastive Linguistics; Language Patterns; *Language Research; Language Variation; *Linguistic Theory; Number Systems; *Salish; *Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Uncommonly Taught Languages ABSTRACT A salient characteristic of the morpho-lexical systems of the Salish languages is the widespread use of reduplication in both derivational and inflectional functions. Salish reduplication signals such typologically common categories as "distributive/plural," "repetitive/continuative," and "diminutive," the cross-linguistically marked but typically Salish notion of "out-of-control" or more restricted categories in particular Salish languages. In addition to these functions, reduplication also plays a role in numeral systems of the Salish languages. The basic forms of several numerals appear to be reduplicated throughout the Salish family. In addition, correspondences among the various Interior Salish languages suggest the association of certain reduplicative patterns with particular "counting forms" referring to specific nominal categories. While developments in the other Salish language are frequently more idiosyncratic and complex, comparative evidence suggests that the
    [Show full text]
  • The Daala Video Codec Project Next-Next Generation Video
    The Daala Video Codec Project Next-next Generation Video Timothy B. Terriberry Mozilla & The Xiph.Org Foundation ● Patents are no longer a problem for free software – We can all go home 2 Mozilla & The Xiph.Org Foundation ● Except... not quite 3 Mozilla & The Xiph.Org Foundation Carving out Exceptions in OIN (Table 0 contains one Xiph codec: FLAC) 4 Mozilla & The Xiph.Org Foundation Why This Matters ● Encumbered codecs are a billion dollar toll-tax on communications – Every cost from codecs is repeated a million fold in all multimedia software ● Codec licensing is anti-competitive – Licensing regimes are universally discriminatory – An excuse for proprietary software (Flash) ● Ignoring licensing creates risks that can show up at any time – A tax on success 5 Mozilla & The Xiph.Org Foundation The Royalty-Free Video Challenge ● Creating good codecs is hard – But we don’t need many – The best implementations of patented codecs are already free software ● Network effects decide – Where RF is established, non-free codecs see no adoption (JPEG, PNG, FLAC, …) ● RF is not enough – People care about different things – Must be better on all fronts 6 Mozilla & The Xiph.Org Foundation We Did This for Audio 7 Mozilla & The Xiph.Org Foundation The Daala Project ● Goal: Better than HEVC without infringing IPR ● Need a better strategy than “read a lot of patents” – People don’t believe you – Analysis is error-prone ● Try to stay far away from the line, but... ● One mistake can ruin years of development effort ● See: H.264 Baseline 8 Mozilla & The Xiph.Org
    [Show full text]
  • PVQ Applied Outside of Daala (IETF 97 Draft)
    PVQ Applied outside of Daala (IETF 97 Draft) Yushin Cho Mozilla Corporation November, 2016 Introduction ● Perceptual Vector Quantization (PVQ) – Proposed as a quantization and coefficient coding tool for NETVC – Originally developed for the Daala video codec – Does a gain-shape coding of transform coefficients ● The most distinguishing idea of PVQ is the way it references a predictor. – PVQ does not subtract the predictor from the input to produce a residual Mozilla Corporation 2 Integrating PVQ into AV1 ● Introduction of a transformed predictors both in encoder and decoder – Because PVQ references the predictor in the transform domain, instead of using a pixel-domain residual as in traditional scalar quantization ● Activity masking, the major benefit of PVQ, is not enabled yet – Encoding RDO is solely based on PSNR Mozilla Corporation 3 Traditional Architecture Input X residue Subtraction Transform T signal R predictor P + decoded X Inverse Inverse Scalar decoded R Transform Quantizer Quantizer Coefficient bitstream of Coder coded T(X) Mozilla Corporation 4 AV1 with PVQ Input X Transform T T(X) PVQ Quantizer PVQ Coefficient predictor P Transform T T(X) Coder PVQ Inverse Quantizer Inverse dequantized bitstream of decoded X Transform T(X) coded T(X) Mozilla Corporation 5 Coding Gain Change Metric AV1 --> AV1 with PVQ PSNR Y -0.17 PSNR-HVS 0.27 SSIM 0.93 MS-SSIM 0.14 CIEDE2000 -0.28 ● For the IETF test sequence set, "objective-1-fast". ● IETF and AOM for high latency encoding options are used. Mozilla Corporation 6 Speed ● Increase in total encoding time due to PVQ's search for best codepoint – PVQ's time complexity is close to O(n*n) for n coefficients, while scalar quantization has O(n) ● Compared to Daala, the search space for a RDO decision in AV1 is far larger – For the 1st frame of grandma_qcif (176x144) in intra frame mode, Daala calls PVQ 3843 times, while AV1 calls 632,520 times, that is ~165x.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Multi-Codec Support for OTT Services: HEVC/H.265 And/Or AV1?
    Efficient Multi-Codec Support for OTT Services: HEVC/H.265 and/or AV1? Christian Timmerer†,‡, Martin Smole‡, and Christopher Mueller‡ ‡Bitmovin Inc., †Alpen-Adria-Universität San Francisco, CA, USA and Klagenfurt, Austria, EU ‡{firstname.lastname}@bitmovin.com, †{firstname.lastname}@itec.aau.at Abstract – The success of HTTP adaptive streaming is un- multiple versions (e.g., different resolutions and bitrates) and disputed and technical standards begin to converge to com- each version is divided into predefined pieces of a few sec- mon formats reducing market fragmentation. However, other onds (typically 2-10s). A client first receives a manifest de- obstacles appear in form of multiple video codecs to be sup- scribing the available content on a server, and then, the client ported in the future, which calls for an efficient multi-codec requests pieces based on its context (e.g., observed available support for over-the-top services. In this paper, we review the bandwidth, buffer status, decoding capabilities). Thus, it is state of the art of HTTP adaptive streaming formats with re- able to adapt the media presentation in a dynamic, adaptive spect to new services and video codecs from a deployment way. perspective. Our findings reveal that multi-codec support is The existing different formats use slightly different ter- inevitable for a successful deployment of today's and future minology. Adopting DASH terminology, the versions are re- services and applications. ferred to as representations and pieces are called segments, which we will use henceforth. The major differences between INTRODUCTION these formats are shown in Table 1. We note a strong differ- entiation in the manifest format and it is expected that both Today's over-the-top (OTT) services account for more than MPEG's media presentation description (MPD) and HLS's 70 percent of the internet traffic and this number is expected playlist (m3u8) will coexist at least for some time.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Language Education in Washington State: Facts, Attitudes
    Russell Hugo University of Washington 1 MAP: Own work by Nikater, submitted to the public domain. Background map courtesy of Demis, www.demis.nl 2 This presentation presents a study on: 1. What indigenous languages are taught in Washington state public schools 2. What factors may influence the likelihood of a program existing 3. How public education revitalization efforts might be better supported Tulalip family in ceremonial dress pose in Volunteer Park, Seattle, through collaboration Washington, 1938 http://content.lib.washington.edu/u?/loc,1481 3 Late 18th century 24 languages Gunther, Erna (1972). Indian life on the Northwest coast of North America, as seen by the early explorers and fur traders during the last decades of the eighteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Suttles, Cameron, & Suttles, Wayne P. (Cartographer). (1985). Native languages of the Northwest Coast. 4 MELL WA The Mapping and Enhancing Language Learning in Washington State Project WA OSPI The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the state of Washington 5 2009 Map of counties with high schools that reported offering a “Native American” language. (Created by MELLWA) 6 295 school districts 2339 schools Per-school mean of total student populations: 3.36/143 are indigenous students ▪ (approximately 2% of Nez Perce Chief Joseph on horseback, Colville Indian Reservation, the average total Washington, 1903 http://content-dev.lib.washington.edu/u?/loc,1942 student population) (OSPI, 2009a, 2009b, 2010) 7 2003: WAC 181-78A-700 . Created indigenous language teacher certification program 2005: HB 1495 - 2005-2006 . Teaching of indigenous (tribal) history in public schools 2007: Senate Bill 5269 .
    [Show full text]
  • LORE: a Loop Repository for the Evaluation of Compilers Zhi Chen∗, Zhangxiaowen Gong†, Justin Josef Szaday†, David C
    LORE: A Loop Repository for the Evaluation of Compilers Zhi Chen∗, Zhangxiaowen Gongy, Justin Josef Szadayy, David C. Wongz, David Padua y, Alexandru Nicolau ∗, Alexander V Veidenbaum ∗, Neftali Watkinson ∗, Zehra Sura x, Saeed Maleki{, Josep Torrellasy, Gerald DeJongy z Intel Corporation, x IBM Research, { Microsoft Research, ∗ University of California, Irvine, y University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Email: ∗fzhic2, nicolau, alexv, [email protected], [email protected], yfgong15, szaday2, padua, torrella, [email protected], [email protected], {[email protected] Abstract—Although numerous loop optimization techniques successive versions, and the effectiveness of solo/compound have been designed and deployed in commercial compilers in transformations. While some of such data can be found in the the past, virtually no common experimental infrastructure nor literature, in many cases compiler studies are confined to a repository exists to help the compiler community evaluate the effectiveness of these techniques. few codes, which are not always widely available. In addition, This paper describes a repository, LORE, that maintains a there is little in the area of historical data that shows how much large number of C language for loop nests extracted from popu- progress compiler technology has made in terms of delivering lar benchmarks, libraries, and real applications. It also describes performance. the infrastructure that builds and maintains the repository. Each In this paper, we propose LORE, a repository of program loop nest in the repository has been compiled, transformed, executed, and measured independently. These loops cover a segments, their semantically equivalent transformed versions, variety of properties that can be used by the compiler community and performance measurements with various compilers.
    [Show full text]
  • AV1 Status Update
    AV1 Status update Rostislav Pehlivanov [email protected] 2017-02-05 What is AV1 Interoperable and open Optimized for the Internet Scalable to any modern device at any bandwidth Designed with a low computational footprint and optimized for hardware Capable of consistent, highest-quality, real-time video delivery Flexible for both commercial and non-commercial content, including user-generated content What is AV1 (decoded) Royalty free Open development Lots of companies who deal with video on the internet involved Will see adaption Lots of members own patents we can use to make the codec better Avoiding alien IP means we have to work around patents and possibly discover better ways than the old tried and true techniques Reference encoder Reference encoder based on libvpx Without VP8 support With some bugfixes Every tool added initially as an experiment after passing review After passing IP review it gets enabled by default and becomes part of the codec * After codec bitstream gets frozen experiments that didn't make it get removed * ** * - Hasn't happened yet ** - Won't happen until the end of the year A codec is only as good as its coding tools Currently there are over 50 experiments: emulate hardware, clpf, dering, var tx, rect tx, ref mv, dual filter, convolve round, ext tx, tx64x64, sub8x8 mc, ext intra, intra interp, filter intra, ext inter, compound segment, ext refs, global motion, new quant, supertx, ans, ec multisymbol, loop restoration, ext partition, ext partition types, unpoison partition ctx, ext tile, motion var, ncobmc, warped
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE REDUPLICATION in KLALLAM: a DESCRIPTION of the MORPHOLOGY-PHONOLOGY INTERFACE a Thesis S
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE REDUPLICATION IN KLALLAM: A DESCRIPTION OF THE MORPHOLOGY-PHONOLOGY INTERFACE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics By Anne C. Crawford December 2015 The thesis of Anne C. Crawford is approved: __________________________________________ __________________ Dr. Kenneth V. Luna, PhD Date __________________________________________ __________________ Dr. David Medeiros, PhD Date ___________________________________________ __________________ Dr. Christina Scholten, PhD, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SIGNATURE PAGE ii LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Documentation and Revitalization of Klallam 2 1.2 Review of the Literature: Salishan Languages 5 1.3 Reduplication Characteristics and Relevant Issues 8 1.4 Reduplication in Salishan Languages 16 1.5 Purpose and Significance 19 CHAPTER 2: PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES OF KLALLAM 21 2.1 Consonants 21 2.2 Vowels 26 2.3 Stress 27 2.4 Phonological Patterns 29 2.5 Summary of Phonological Rules 38 CHAPTER 3: A TYPOLOGY OF KLALLAM REDUPLICATION 40 3.1 Diminutive 41 3.2 Plural 49 3.3 Actual 60 iii 3.4 Characteristic 70 3.5 Resultative 77 3.6 Inceptive 83 3.7 Affective 85 3.8 Distributive 88 3.9 Multiple Reduplication 92 3.10 Discussion 100 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION 107 4.1 Insights Gained from the Study 107 4.2 Directions for Future Research 110 REFERENCES 113 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Overview of Klallam reduplication in the literature 19 Table 2.1 Phonemic inventory of Klallam consonants 21 Table 2.2 Phonemic inventory of Klallam vowels 26 Table 2.3 Grapheme/phoneme correspondences 29 Table 2.4 Klallam phonological rules 38 Table 3.1 Distribution of Klallam multiple reduplication 92 Table 3.2 Summary of Klallam reduplication patterns 106 v ABSTRACT REDUPLICATION IN KLALLAM: A DESCRIPTION OF THE MORPHOLOGY-PHONOLOGY INTERFACE By Anne C.
    [Show full text]
  • Forcepoint DLP Supported File Formats and Size Limits
    Forcepoint DLP Supported File Formats and Size Limits Supported File Formats and Size Limits | Forcepoint DLP | v8.8.1 This article provides a list of the file formats that can be analyzed by Forcepoint DLP, file formats from which content and meta data can be extracted, and the file size limits for network, endpoint, and discovery functions. See: ● Supported File Formats ● File Size Limits © 2021 Forcepoint LLC Supported File Formats Supported File Formats and Size Limits | Forcepoint DLP | v8.8.1 The following tables lists the file formats supported by Forcepoint DLP. File formats are in alphabetical order by format group. ● Archive For mats, page 3 ● Backup Formats, page 7 ● Business Intelligence (BI) and Analysis Formats, page 8 ● Computer-Aided Design Formats, page 9 ● Cryptography Formats, page 12 ● Database Formats, page 14 ● Desktop publishing formats, page 16 ● eBook/Audio book formats, page 17 ● Executable formats, page 18 ● Font formats, page 20 ● Graphics formats - general, page 21 ● Graphics formats - vector graphics, page 26 ● Library formats, page 29 ● Log formats, page 30 ● Mail formats, page 31 ● Multimedia formats, page 32 ● Object formats, page 37 ● Presentation formats, page 38 ● Project management formats, page 40 ● Spreadsheet formats, page 41 ● Text and markup formats, page 43 ● Word processing formats, page 45 ● Miscellaneous formats, page 53 Supported file formats are added and updated frequently. Key to support tables Symbol Description Y The format is supported N The format is not supported P Partial metadata
    [Show full text]
  • RULING CODECS of VIDEO COMPRESSION and ITS FUTURE 1Dr.Manju.V.C, 2Apsara and 3Annapoorna
    International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM) Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: [email protected] Volume 8, Issue 7, July 2019 ISSN 2319 - 4847 RULING CODECS OF VIDEO COMPRESSION AND ITS FUTURE 1Dr.Manju.v.C, 2Apsara and 3Annapoorna 1Professor,KSIT 2Under-Gradute, Telecommunication Engineering, KSIT 3Under-Gradute, Telecommunication Engineering, KSIT Abstract Development of economical video codecs for low bitrate video transmission with higher compression potency has been a vigorous space of analysis over past years and varied techniques are projected to fulfill this need. Video Compression is a term accustomed outline a technique for reducing the information accustomed cipher digital video content. This reduction in knowledge interprets to edges like smaller storage needs and lower transmission information measure needs, for a clip of video content. In this paper, we survey different video codec standards and also discuss about the challenges in VP9 codec Keywords: Codecs, HEVC, VP9, AV1 1. INTRODUCTION Storing video requires a lot of storage space. To make this task manageable, video compression technology was developed to compress video, also known as a codec. Video coding techniques provide economic solutions to represent video data in a more compact and stout way so that the storage and transmission of video will be completed in less value in less cost in terms of bandwidth, size and power consumption. This technology (video compression) reduces redundancies in spatial and temporal directions. Spatial reduction physically reduces the size of the video data by selectively discarding up to a fourth or more of unneeded parts of the original data in a frame [1].
    [Show full text]