Adapting X264 to Asynchronous Video Telephony for the Deaf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Download Media Player Codec Pack Version 4.1 Media Player Codec Pack
download media player codec pack version 4.1 Media Player Codec Pack. Description: In Microsoft Windows 10 it is not possible to set all file associations using an installer. Microsoft chose to block changes of file associations with the introduction of their Zune players. Third party codecs are also blocked in some instances, preventing some files from playing in the Zune players. A simple workaround for this problem is to switch playback of video and music files to Windows Media Player manually. In start menu click on the "Settings". In the "Windows Settings" window click on "System". On the "System" pane click on "Default apps". On the "Choose default applications" pane click on "Films & TV" under "Video Player". On the "Choose an application" pop up menu click on "Windows Media Player" to set Windows Media Player as the default player for video files. Footnote: The same method can be used to apply file associations for music, by simply clicking on "Groove Music" under "Media Player" instead of changing Video Player in step 4. Media Player Codec Pack Plus. Codec's Explained: A codec is a piece of software on either a device or computer capable of encoding and/or decoding video and/or audio data from files, streams and broadcasts. The word Codec is a portmanteau of ' co mpressor- dec ompressor' Compression types that you will be able to play include: x264 | x265 | h.265 | HEVC | 10bit x265 | 10bit x264 | AVCHD | AVC DivX | XviD | MP4 | MPEG4 | MPEG2 and many more. File types you will be able to play include: .bdmv | .evo | .hevc | .mkv | .avi | .flv | .webm | .mp4 | .m4v | .m4a | .ts | .ogm .ac3 | .dts | .alac | .flac | .ape | .aac | .ogg | .ofr | .mpc | .3gp and many more. -
Encoding H.264 Video for Streaming and Progressive Download
What is Tuning? • Disable features that: • Improve subjective video quality but • Degrade objective scores • Example: adaptive quantization – changes bit allocation over frame depending upon complexity • Improves visual quality • Looks like “error” to metrics like PSNR/VMAF What is Tuning? • Switches in encoding string that enables tuning (and disables these features) ffmpeg –input.mp4 –c:v libx264 –tune psnr output.mp4 • With x264, this disables adaptive quantization and psychovisual optimizations Why So Important • Major point of contention: • “If you’re running a test with x264 or x265, and you wish to publish PSNR or SSIM scores, you MUST use –tune PSNR or –tune SSIM, or your results will be completely invalid.” • http://x265.org/compare-video-encoders/ • Absolutely critical when comparing codecs because some may or may not enable these adjustments • You don’t have to tune in your tests; but you should address the issue and explain why you either did or didn’t Does Impact Scores • 3 mbps football (high motion, lots of detail) • PSNR • No tuning – 32.00 dB • Tuning – 32.58 dB • .58 dB • VMAF • No tuning – 71.79 • Tuning – 75.01 • Difference – over 3 VMAF points • 6 is JND, so not a huge deal • But if inconsistent between test parameters, could incorrectly show one codec (or encoding configuration) as better than the other VQMT VMAF Graph Red – tuned Green – not tuned Multiple frames with 3-4-point differentials Downward spikes represent untuned frames that metric perceives as having lower quality Tuned Not tuned Observations • Tuning -
EMA Mezzanine File Creation Specification and Best Practices Version 1.0.1 For
16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400 Encino, CA 91436 818.385.1500 www.entmerch.org EMA Mezzanine File Creation Specification and Best Practices Version 1.0.1 for Digital Audio‐Visual Distribution January 7, 2014 EMA MEZZANINE FILE CREATION SPECIFICATION AND BEST PRACTICES The Mezzanine File Working Group of EMA’s Digital Supply Chain Committee developed the attached recommended Mezzanine File Specification and Best Practices. Why is the Specification and Best Practices document needed? At the request of their customers, content providers and post‐house have been creating mezzanine files unique to each of their retail partners. This causes unnecessary costs in the supply chain and constrains the flow of new content. There is a demand to make more content available for digital distribution more quickly. Sales are lost if content isn’t available to be merchandised. Today’s ecosystem is too manual. Standardization will facilitate automation, reducing costs and increasing speed. Quality control issues slow down today’s processes. Creating one standard mezzanine file instead of many files for the same content should reduce the quantity of errors. And, when an error does occur and is caught by a single customer, it can be corrected for all retailers/distributors. Mezzanine File Working Group Participants in the Mezzanine File Working Group were: Amazon – Ben Waggoner, Ryan Wernet Dish – Timothy Loveridge Google – Bill Kotzman, Doug Stallard Microsoft – Andy Rosen Netflix – Steven Kang , Nick Levin, Chris Fetner Redbox Instant – Joe Ambeault Rovi -
On Engagement with ICT Standards and Their Implementations in Open Source Software Projects: Experiences and Insights from the Multimedia Field
International Journal of Standardization Research Volume 19 • Issue 1 On Engagement With ICT Standards and Their Implementations in Open Source Software Projects: Experiences and Insights From the Multimedia Field Jonas Gamalielsson, University of Skövde, Sweden Björn Lundell, University of Skövde, Sweden ABSTRACT The overarching goal in this paper is to investigate organisational engagement with an ICT standard and open source software (OSS) projects that implement the standard, with a specific focus on the multimedia field, which is relevant in light of the wide deployment of standards and different legal challenges in this field. The first part reports on experiences and insights from engagement with standards in the multimedia field and from implementation of such standards in OSS projects. The second part focuses on the case of the ITU-T H.264 standard and the two OSS projects OpenH264 and x264 that implement the standard, and reports on a characterisation of organisations that engage with and control the H.264 standard, and organisations that engage with and control OSS projects implementing the H.264 standard. Further, projects for standardisation and implementation of H.264 are contrasted with respect to mix of contributing organisations, and findings are related to organisational strategies of contributing organisations and previous research. KEywordS AVC, H.264, Involvement, ISO, ITU-T, OpenH264, Participation, x264 1 INTROdUCTION There are a number of different challenges related to provision of standards in the software sector, that can impact on the extent to which it is possible to faithfully implement the specification of a standard in software systems (Blind and Böhm, 2019; Gamalielsson and Lundell, 2013; Lundell et al., 2019; UK, 2015). -
Format Support
Episode 6 Format Support FILE FORMAT CODEC Episode Episode Episode Pro EngineCOMMENTS Adaptive bitrate streaming Microsoft Smooth Streaming H.264 (AAC audio) O Windows OS only. Available with Episode Engine License. Apple HLS H.264 (AAC audio) O Available with Episode Engine License. Windows Media WMV, ASF VC-1 O O O WM9 I/O I/O I/O WMV7 and 8 through F4M component on Mac WMA I/O I/O I/O WMA Pro I/O I/O I/O Flash FLV Flash 8 (VP6s/VP6e) I/O I/O I/O SWF Flash 8 (VP6s/VP6e) I/O I/O I/O MOV/MP4/F4V Flash 9 (H.264) I/O I/O I/O F4V as extension to MP4 WebM WebM VP8 O O O Vorbis O O O 3GPP 3GPP AAC I/O I/O I/O H.263 I/O I/O I/O H.264 I/O I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O 3GPP2 3GPP2 AAC I/O I/O I/O H.263 I/O I/O I/O H.264 I/O I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Elementary Streams MPEG-1 Elementary Stream MPEG-1 (video) I/O I/O I/O MPEG-2 Elementary Stream MPEG-2 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Program Streams PS AAC O O O MainConcept and x264 H.264 I/O I/O I/O MPEG-1/2 (audio) I/O I/O I/O MPEG-2 I/O I/O I/O MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Transport Streams TS AAC I O O AES I I/O I/O H.264 I I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 AVCHD I I I HDV I I/O I/O MPEG - 1/2 (audio) I I/O I/O MPEG - 2 I I/O I/O MPEG - 4 I I/O I/O PCM I I I Matrox MAX H.264 I/O I/O I/O QT codec (*output possible via QT), Requires Matrox MAX hardware - Mac OS X only MPEG System Streams M1A MPEG-1 (audio) I/O I/O I/O M1V MPEG-1 (audio) I/O I/O I/O Episode 6 Format Support Format Support FILE FORMAT CODEC Episode Episode Episode Pro EngineCOMMENTS MPEG-4 MP4 AAC I/O I/O I/O -
Ffmpeg Codecs Documentation Table of Contents
FFmpeg Codecs Documentation Table of Contents 1 Description 2 Codec Options 3 Decoders 4 Video Decoders 4.1 hevc 4.2 rawvideo 4.2.1 Options 5 Audio Decoders 5.1 ac3 5.1.1 AC-3 Decoder Options 5.2 flac 5.2.1 FLAC Decoder options 5.3 ffwavesynth 5.4 libcelt 5.5 libgsm 5.6 libilbc 5.6.1 Options 5.7 libopencore-amrnb 5.8 libopencore-amrwb 5.9 libopus 6 Subtitles Decoders 6.1 dvbsub 6.1.1 Options 6.2 dvdsub 6.2.1 Options 6.3 libzvbi-teletext 6.3.1 Options 7 Encoders 8 Audio Encoders 8.1 aac 8.1.1 Options 8.2 ac3 and ac3_fixed 8.2.1 AC-3 Metadata 8.2.1.1 Metadata Control Options 8.2.1.2 Downmix Levels 8.2.1.3 Audio Production Information 8.2.1.4 Other Metadata Options 8.2.2 Extended Bitstream Information 8.2.2.1 Extended Bitstream Information - Part 1 8.2.2.2 Extended Bitstream Information - Part 2 8.2.3 Other AC-3 Encoding Options 8.2.4 Floating-Point-Only AC-3 Encoding Options 8.3 flac 8.3.1 Options 8.4 opus 8.4.1 Options 8.5 libfdk_aac 8.5.1 Options 8.5.2 Examples 8.6 libmp3lame 8.6.1 Options 8.7 libopencore-amrnb 8.7.1 Options 8.8 libopus 8.8.1 Option Mapping 8.9 libshine 8.9.1 Options 8.10 libtwolame 8.10.1 Options 8.11 libvo-amrwbenc 8.11.1 Options 8.12 libvorbis 8.12.1 Options 8.13 libwavpack 8.13.1 Options 8.14 mjpeg 8.14.1 Options 8.15 wavpack 8.15.1 Options 8.15.1.1 Shared options 8.15.1.2 Private options 9 Video Encoders 9.1 Hap 9.1.1 Options 9.2 jpeg2000 9.2.1 Options 9.3 libkvazaar 9.3.1 Options 9.4 libopenh264 9.4.1 Options 9.5 libtheora 9.5.1 Options 9.5.2 Examples 9.6 libvpx 9.6.1 Options 9.7 libwebp 9.7.1 Pixel Format 9.7.2 Options 9.8 libx264, libx264rgb 9.8.1 Supported Pixel Formats 9.8.2 Options 9.9 libx265 9.9.1 Options 9.10 libxvid 9.10.1 Options 9.11 mpeg2 9.11.1 Options 9.12 png 9.12.1 Private options 9.13 ProRes 9.13.1 Private Options for prores-ks 9.13.2 Speed considerations 9.14 QSV encoders 9.15 snow 9.15.1 Options 9.16 vc2 9.16.1 Options 10 Subtitles Encoders 10.1 dvdsub 10.1.1 Options 11 See Also 12 Authors 1 Description# TOC This document describes the codecs (decoders and encoders) provided by the libavcodec library. -
AVC, HEVC, VP9, AVS2 Or AV1? — a Comparative Study of State-Of-The-Art Video Encoders on 4K Videos
AVC, HEVC, VP9, AVS2 or AV1? | A Comparative Study of State-of-the-art Video Encoders on 4K Videos Zhuoran Li, Zhengfang Duanmu, Wentao Liu, and Zhou Wang University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada fz777li,zduanmu,w238liu,[email protected] Abstract. 4K, ultra high-definition (UHD), and higher resolution video contents have become increasingly popular recently. The largely increased data rate casts great challenges to video compression and communication technologies. Emerging video coding methods are claimed to achieve su- perior performance for high-resolution video content, but thorough and independent validations are lacking. In this study, we carry out an in- dependent and so far the most comprehensive subjective testing and performance evaluation on videos of diverse resolutions, bit rates and content variations, and compressed by popular and emerging video cod- ing methods including H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC, VP9, AVS2 and AV1. Our statistical analysis derived from a total of more than 36,000 raw sub- jective ratings on 1,200 test videos suggests that significant improvement in terms of rate-quality performance against the AVC encoder has been achieved by state-of-the-art encoders, and such improvement is increas- ingly manifest with the increase of resolution. Furthermore, we evaluate state-of-the-art objective video quality assessment models, and our re- sults show that the SSIMplus measure performs the best in predicting 4K subjective video quality. The database will be made available online to the public to facilitate future video encoding and video quality research. Keywords: Video compression, quality-of-experience, subjective qual- ity assessment, objective quality assessment, 4K video, ultra-high-definition (UHD), video coding standard 1 Introduction 4K, ultra high-definition (UHD), and higher resolution video contents have en- joyed a remarkable growth in recent years. -
MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison Short Version of Report
MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison Short version of report Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin Measurements, analysis: Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov, Alexander Parshin Codecs: DivX H.264 Elecard H.264 Intel® MediaSDK AVC/H.264 MainConcept H.264 Microsoft Expression Encoder Theora x264 XviD (MPEG-4 ASP codec) April 2010 CS MSU Graphics&Media Lab Video Group http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/index_en.html [email protected] VIDEO MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 CODECS COMPARISON MOSCOW, APR 2010 CS MSU GRAPHICS & MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP SHORT VERSION Contents Contents .................................................................................................................... 2 1 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. 4 2 Overview ........................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Sequences .....................................................................................................................5 2.2 Codecs ...........................................................................................................................5 2.3 Objectives and Testing Rules ........................................................................................6 2.4 H.264 Codec Testing Objectives ...................................................................................6 2.5 Testing Rules .................................................................................................................6 -
Cambria Ftc Cambria Ftc: Technical Specifications
CAMBRIA FTC CAMBRIA FTC: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Version .9 12/6/2017 Page 1 CAMBRIA FTC CAMBRIA FTC: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT................................................................................................3 1.1Purpose of This Technical specifications document.....................................................3 2 OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONALITY ...............................................................................................3 2.1Key Features....................................................................................................................3 2.1.1 General Features.................................................................................................3 2.1.2 Engine Features...................................................................................................3 2.1.3 Workflow Features...............................................................................................4 2.1.4 Video and Audio Filters.....................................................................................5 3 MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................5 3.1Operating System............................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Windows Update May Be Required.................................................................6 3.2 Processor......................................................................................................................6 -
Episode Format Sheet
Episode 7.1 and later Format Support FILE FORMAT CODEC Episode Episode Episode Pro EngineCOMMENTS Adaptive bitrate streaming Microsoft Smooth Streaming H.264 (AAC audio) O O Apple HLS H.264 (AAC audio) O O MPEG-DASH H.264 (AAC audio) O O Windows Media WMV, ASF VC-1 O O O WM9 I/O I/O I/O WMV7 and 8 through F4M component on Mac WMA I/O I/O I/O WMA Pro I/O I/O I/O Flash MOV/MP4/F4V Flash 9 (H.264) I/O I/O I/O F4V as extension to MP4 WebM WebM VP9, VP8 O O O 3GPP 3GPP AAC I/O I/O I/O H.263 I/O I/O I/O H.264 I/O I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O AMR I/O I/O I/O HE-AAC I/O I/O I/O 3GPP2 3GPP2 AAC I/O I/O I/O H.263 I/O I/O I/O H.264 I/O I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O AMR I/O I/O I/O HE-AAC I/O I/O I/O EZ Movie I/O I/O I/O MPEG Elementary Streams MPEG-1 Elementary Stream MPEG-1 (video) I/O I/O I/O MPEG-2 Elementary Stream MPEG-2 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Program Streams PS AAC O O O MainConcept and x264 H.264 I/O I/O I/O MPEG-1/2 (audio) I/O I/O I/O MPEG-2 I/O I/O I/O MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O AC3 / ATSC A-52 I/O I/O I/O MPEG Transport Streams TS AAC I O O AES I I/O I/O H.264 I I/O I/O MainConcept and x264 AVCHD I I I HDV I I/O I/O MPEG - 1/2 (audio) I I/O I/O MPEG - 2 I I/O I/O MPEG - 4 I I/O I/O PCM I I I AC3 / ATSC A-52 I/O I/O I/O Episode 7.1 and later Format Support Format Support FILE FORMAT CODEC Episode Episode Episode Pro EngineCOMMENTS MPEG System Streams (con’td) M1A MPEG-1 (audio) I/O I/O I/O M1V MPEG-1 (audio) I/O I/O I/O MPEG-4 MP4 AAC I/O I/O I/O H.264 I/O I/O I/O Main Concept and x264 MPEG-4 I/O I/O I/O HEVC I/O -
H.264 Codec Comparison
MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codecs Comparison Short version of report Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin Measurements, analysis: Dmitriy Kulikov, Alexander Parshin Codecs: XviD (MPEG-4 ASP codec) MainConcept H.264 Intel H.264 x264 AMD H.264 Artemis H.264 December 2007 CS MSU Graphics&Media Lab Video Group http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/index_en.html [email protected] VIDEO MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 CODECS COMPARISON MOSCOW, DEC 2007 CS MSU GRAPHICS & MEDIA LAB VIDEO GROUP SHORT VERSION Contents 1 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................4 2 Overview ..............................................................................................................5 2.1 Difference between Short and Full Versions............................................................ 5 2.2 Sequences ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Codecs ..................................................................................................................... 6 3 Objectives and Testing Rules ..............................................................................7 3.1 H.264 Codec Testing Objectives.............................................................................. 7 3.2 Testing Rules ........................................................................................................... 7 4 Comparison Results.............................................................................................9 -
(LCEVC) for Gaming Video Streaming Applications
Evaluation of MPEG-5 Part 2 (LCEVC) for Gaming Video Streaming Applications Nabajeet Barman↥, Saman Zadtootaghaj, Maria G Martini↥ and Sebastian Möller ↥School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Kingston University, London, UK Quality and Usability Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] VQEG_CGI_2021_131 1 Objectives Evaluation of the new MPEG-5 Low Complexity Enhancement Video Coding (LCEVC) standard on Gaming Content Comparison of compression efficiency of LCEVC with existing practical implementation of video codec standards H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC 2 High level LCEVC decoding workflow Image Source: https://docs.v-nova.com/v-nova/lcevc/lcevc-sdk-overview 3 LCEVC: Two sublayers of residual data Image Source: https://docs.v-nova.com/v-nova/lcevc/lcevc-sdk-overview 4 LCEVC Advantages Improved video compression efficiency (compared to base codec used at full resolution) Reduced overall encoding complexity Backwards compatible with existing ecosystem of device (no new chipsets needed) 5 Source Sequences Cloud Gaming Video Dataset (CGDVS) ● 14 reference gaming videos ● 1920x1080 ● 60 fps ● 30 seconds 6 Screenshots of six sample games used in this work (d) FIFA 2017 (a) Bejeweled (b) Worms (c) Fortnite (d) LoL (e) Maplestory (f) Overwatch 7 Spatial Information (SI) vs Temporal Information (TI) 8 Encoding Settings Summary 9 Results 10 Quality-BR curves 11 X264 vs LCEVC-x264 12 X265 vs LCEVC-x265 13 BD-BR 14 x264 vs LCEVC_x264 (medium preset) 15 x265 vs LCEVC_x265 (veryfast preset) 16 BD-BR Savings (VMAF) 17 High Complexity Games - Fortnite 18 High Complexity Games - Tekken 19 Low Complexity Games - LoL 20 Low Complexity Games - Worms 21 LCEVC demo: search ‘V-Nova’ in app stores Credentials: User name: LCEVC_Gaming Pwd: Gaming2021 22 Encoding Speed x264 (medium) --> LCEVC x264 (medium) is 1.7-2x faster x265 (veryfast) --> LCEVC x265 (veryfast) is 1.2-1.3x faster Note: This is a rough estimate based on few sample videos encoding on a Laptop.