DOCSLIB.ORG

On Audio-Visual File Formats

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Audio-Visual File Formats On Audio-Visual File Formats Summary • digital audio and digital video • container, codec, raw data • different formats for different purposes Reto Kromer • AV Preservation by reto.ch • audio-visual data transformations Film Preservation and Restoration Hyderabad, India 8–15 December 2019 1 2 Digital Audio • sampling Digital Audio • quantisation 3 4 Sampling • 44.1 kHz • 48 kHz • 96 kHz • 192 kHz digitisation = sampling + quantisation 5 6 Quantisation • 16 bit (216 = 65 536) • 24 bit (224 = 16 777 216) • 32 bit (232 = 4 294 967 296) Digital Video 7 8 Digital Video Resolution • resolution • SD 480i / SD 576i • bit depth • HD 720p / HD 1080i • linear, power, logarithmic • 2K / HD 1080p • colour model • 4K / UHD-1 • chroma subsampling • 8K / UHD-2 • illuminant 9 10 Bit Depth Linear, Power, Logarithmic • 8 bit (28 = 256) «medium grey» • 10 bit (210 = 1 024) • linear: 18% • 12 bit (212 = 4 096) • power: 50% • 16 bit (216 = 65 536) • logarithmic: 50% • 24 bit (224 = 16 777 216) 11 12 Colour Model • XYZ, L*a*b* • RGB / R′G′B′ / CMY / C′M′Y′ • Y′IQ / Y′UV / Y′DBDR • Y′CBCR / Y′COCG • Y′PBPR 13 14 15 16 17 18 RGB24 00000000 11111111 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 11111111 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 11111111 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 11111111 19 20 Compression Uncompressed • uncompressed + data simpler to process • lossless compression + software runs faster • lossy compression – bigger files • chroma subsampling – slower writing, transmission and reading • born compressed Examples: TIFF, DPX, DNG, OpenEXR 21 22 Lossless Compression Lossy Compression + smaller files optimised for image acquisition and/or • postproduction + faster writing, transmission and reading optimised for access – data processing complexer • – software runs slower Examples (mezzanine): ProRes 422, ProRes 4444, DNxHD, DNxHR Examples: JPEG 2000, FFV1 Examples (access): H.264 (AVC), H.265 (HEVC), AV1 23 24 Chroma Subsampling 4:4:4 4:4:4 • 4 • 4:2:2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● • 4:2:0 / 4:1:1 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 25 26 4:2:2 4:2:0 2 ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ 2 ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ 2 ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 27 28 4:1:1 Born Compressed • optimised for both image acquisition and 1 ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ postproduction 1 ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ Examples: CineForm RAW, ProRes RAW ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ 29 30 Bayer 31 32 Illuminant • D50 • D55 • D65 • D75 33 34 35 36 37 38 0111010100101010100010110101011110 0100110101010101010100001011101010 0111010100101010100010110101011110 0001110101010101010100001011101010 0110101010010101010001011010101111 0010101010101010000101110101010000 0111010100101010100010110101011110 File Structure 0101010101010101000010111010100110 1001011101010010101010001011010101 1110010101010101010000101110101010 0111010100101010100010110101011110 0101010101010101001101010100000001 0010100010101010101001010101010101 39 40 File Structure Audio-Visual Container audio-visual container (wrapper) • MP4 • MXF audio MOV Matroska (.mkv) codec video codec • • • AVI audio data video data • Flash 41 42 Single Images Audio Codec • folder • MXF • WAVE • FLAC • TAR • Matroska (.mkv) • BWF • ZIP • CinemaDNG • AAC • MP3 43 44 Video Codec (Master) Video Codec (Mezzanine) images streams • ProRes 422, ProRes 4444, ProRes RAW • TIFF • 8 bit raw • DNxHD, DNxHR • DPX • 10 bit raw • CineForm RAW • JPEG 2000 • HuffYUV • OpenEXR • FFV1 • DNG 45 46 Video Codec (Access) • H.264, H.265 (HEVC), AV1 Data is anything but «raw». 47 48 Audio Data Video Data • pcm_s16le • rgb48le • yuv444p16le • pcm_s24le • rgb24 • yuv422p10le • pcm_s32le • rgb72le • uyvy422 • yuv420p • yuv444p24le • bayer_bggr16le • bayer_bggr24le 49 50 What is inside my DPX? • log neg encoding • log RGB encoding or quasi-log encoding gamma encoding or power function • encoding • scene-linear encoding 51 52 Principles The archive must be able to handle • the file formats it holds. File Formats • open source • simple to use and well documented • widely used by the community 53 54 Different Purposes archive master format: Elena Rossi-Snook: ➔ for preservation mezzanine format: Archiving without access ➔ for professional use in post-production isn’t preservation, dissemination formats: ➔ for widely spreading and easy access it’s hoarding. 55 56 Archive Master (Today) Mezzanine (Today) film video • folder, TIFF, 2K, RGB, 4:4:4, 16 bit • ProRes 4444, 2K • MXF, DPX, 2K, R′G′B′, 4:4:4, 10 bit • DNxHR, 2K video • ProRes 422 HQ, HD • AVI, «raw», HD, Y′CBCR, 4:2:2, 10 bit • DNxHD 175x, HD • Matroska, FFV1, HD, Y′CBCR, 4:2:2, 10 bit audio audio • BWF, 48 kHz, 24 bit • BWF, 96 kHz, 24 bit • WAVE, 48 kHz, 24 bit • FLAC, 96 kHz, 24 bit 57 58 Dissemination (Today) Archive Master and Mezzanine MP4 film Matroska, FFV1, 2K, RGB, 4:4:4, 16 bit Video • • H.264, SD, yuv420p, «lossy» video • H.264, HD, yuv420p, «lossy» • Matroska, FFV1, HD, Y′CBCR, 4:2:2, 10 bit Sound audio • AAC, 44.1 kHz, 16 bit • Matroska, FLAC, 96 kHz, 24 bit • AAC, 48 kHz, 16 bit 59 60 Access Reading WebM (a subset of Matroska) Reto Kromer: Matroska and FFV1: One File Video Format for Film and Video Archiving?, in «Journal of Film Preservation», n. 96 (April • H.265, HD, yuv420p 2017), FIAF, Brussels, Belgium, p. 41–45 • AV1, HD, yuv420p ➔ https://retokromer.ch/publications/ Sound JFP_96.html • FLAC, 48 kHz, 16 bit 61 62 container: codec: • folder • TIFF • TAR • DPX • ZIP • JPEG 2000 Pros & Cons • MXF • FFV1 • Matroska • OpenEXR • CineForm RAW • ProRes RAW 63 64 XYZ [M] tristimulus JPEG 2000 OpenEXR RGB FFV1 DPX TIFF transfer function R′G′B′ [M] colour diff. encode avantages smaller files data easier Y′CBCR 4:4:4 to process subsampling filter 67 65 Y′CBCR 4:2:2 interpolation filter Y′CBCR 4:4:4 data complexer disavantages [M] bigger files colour diff. decode to process R′G′B′ transfer function RGB [M] tristimulus XYZ Transformations pcm_s24le MOV AAC Audio Exemple demultiplex multiplex encode decode filter 68 66 pcm_s16le MP4 WAVE Video Exemple Audio-Visual Exemple MOV MOV demultiplex demultiplex ProRes 422 HQ WAVE decode decode ProRes 422 HQ yuv422p10le pcm_s24le filter yuv422p10le filter yuv420p pcm_s16le H.264 encode AAC encode yuv420p multiplex H.264 multiplex MP4 MP4 69 70 Acknowledgements AV Preservation by reto.ch Swiss Federal Institute of Technology chemin du Suchet 5 • 1024 Écublens • Massachusetts Institute of Technology Switzerland • Kinemathek Lichtspiel, Bern Web: reto.ch Twitter: @retoch • Charles Poynton Email: [email protected] • Dave Rice & Misty De Meo • Agathe Jarczyk & David Pfluger 71 72.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amphion Video Codecs in an AI World
    Video Codecs In An AI World Dr Doug Ridge Amphion Semiconductor The Proliferance of Video in Networks • Video produces huge volumes of data • According to Cisco “By 2021 video will make up 82% of network traffic” • Equals 3.3 zetabytes of data annually • 3.3 x 1021 bytes • 3.3 billion terabytes AI Engines Overview • Example AI network types include Artificial Neural Networks, Spiking Neural Networks and Self-Organizing Feature Maps • Learning and processing are automated • Processing • AI engines designed for processing huge amounts of data quickly • High degree of parallelism • Much greater performance and significantly lower power than CPU/GPU solutions • Learning and Inference • AI ‘learns’ from masses of data presented • Data presented as Input-Desired Output or as unmarked input for self-organization • AI network can start processing once initial training takes place Typical Applications of AI • Reduce data to be sorted manually • Example application in analysis of mammograms • 99% reduction in images send for analysis by specialist • Reduction in workload resulted in huge reduction in wrong diagnoses • Aid in decision making • Example application in traffic monitoring • Identify areas of interest in imagery to focus attention • No definitive decision made by AI engine • Perform decision making independently • Example application in security video surveillance • Alerts and alarms triggered by AI analysis of behaviours in imagery • Reduction in false alarms and more attention paid to alerts by security staff Typical Video Surveillance
    [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]
  • Encoding H.264 Video for Streaming and Progressive Download
    W4: KEY ENCODING SKILLS, TECHNOLOGIES TECHNIQUES STREAMING MEDIA EAST - 2019 Jan Ozer www.streaminglearningcenter.com [email protected]/ 276-235-8542 @janozer Agenda • Introduction • Lesson 5: How to build encoding • Lesson 1: Delivering to Computers, ladder with objective quality metrics Mobile, OTT, and Smart TVs • Lesson 6: Current status of CMAF • Lesson 2: Codec review • Lesson 7: Delivering with dynamic • Lesson 3: Delivering HEVC over and static packaging HLS • Lesson 4: Per-title encoding Lesson 1: Delivering to Computers, Mobile, OTT, and Smart TVs • Computers • Mobile • OTT • Smart TVs Choosing an ABR Format for Computers • Can be DASH or HLS • Factors • Off-the-shelf player vendor (JW Player, Bitmovin, THEOPlayer, etc.) • Encoding/transcoding vendor Choosing an ABR Format for iOS • Native support (playback in the browser) • HTTP Live Streaming • Playback via an app • Any, including DASH, Smooth, HDS or RTMP Dynamic Streaming iOS Media Support Native App Codecs H.264 (High, Level 4.2), HEVC Any (Main10, Level 5 high) ABR formats HLS Any DRM FairPlay Any Captions CEA-608/708, WebVTT, IMSC1 Any HDR HDR10, DolbyVision ? http://bit.ly/hls_spec_2017 iOS Encoding Ladders H.264 HEVC http://bit.ly/hls_spec_2017 HEVC Hardware Support - iOS 3 % bit.ly/mobile_HEVC http://bit.ly/glob_med_2019 Android: Codec and ABR Format Support Codecs ABR VP8 (2.3+) • Multiple codecs and ABR H.264 (3+) HLS (3+) technologies • Serious cautions about HLS • DASH now close to 97% • HEVC VP9 (4.4+) DASH 4.4+ Via MSE • Main Profile Level 3 – mobile HEVC (5+)
    [Show full text]
  • FFV1, Matroska, LPCM (And More)
    MediaConch Implementation and policy checking on FFV1, Matroska, LPCM (and more) Jérôme Martinez, MediaArea Innovation Workshop ‑ March 2017 What is MediaConch? MediaConch is a conformance checker Implementation checker Policy checker Reporter Fixer What is MediaConch? Implementation and Policy reporter What is MediaConch? Implementation report: Policy report: What is MediaConch? General information about your files What is MediaConch? Inspect your files What is MediaConch? Policy editor What is MediaConch? Public policies What is MediaConch? Fixer Segment sizes in Matroska Matroska “bit flip” correction FFV1 “bit flip” correction Integration Archivematica is an integrated suite of open‑source software tools that allows users to process digital objects from ingest to access in compliance with the ISO‑OAIS functional model MediaConch interfaces Graphical interface Web interface Command line Server (REST API) (Work in progress) a library (.dll/.so/.dylib) MediaConch output formats XML (native format) Text HTML (Work in progress) PDF Tweakable! (with XSL) Open source GPLv3+ and MPLv2+ Relies on MediaInfo (metadata extraction tool) Use well‑known open source libraries: Qt, sqlite, libevent, libxml2, libxslt, libexslt... Supported formats Priorities for the implementation checker Matroska FFV1 PCM Can accept any format supported by MediaInfo for the policy checker MXF + JP2k QuickTime/MOV Audio files (WAV, BWF, AIFF...) ... Supported formats Can be expanded By plugins Support of PDF checker: VeraPDF plugin Support of TIFF checker: DPF Manager plugin You use another checker? Let us know By internal development More tests on your preferred format is possible It depends on you! Versatile Several input formats are accepted FFV1 from MOV or AVI Matroska with other video formats (Work in progress) Extraction of a PDF or TIFF aachement from a Matroska container and analyze with a plugin (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • IP-Soc Shanghai 2017 ALLEGRO Presentation FINAL
    Building an Area-optimized Multi-format Video Encoder IP Tomi Jalonen VP Sales www.allegrodvt.com Allegro DVT Founded in 2003 Privately owned, based in Grenoble (France) Two product lines: 1) Industry de-facto standard video compliance streams Decoder syntax, performance and error resilience streams for H.264|MVC, H.265/SHVC, VP9, AVS2 and AV1 System compliance streams 2) Leading semiconductor video IP Multi-format encoder IP for H.264, H.265, VP9, JPEG Multi-format decoder IP for H.264, H.265, VP9, JPEG WiGig IEEE 802.11ad WDE CODEC IP 2 Evolution of Video Coding Standards International standards defined by standardization bodies such as ITU-T and ISO/IEC H.261 (1990) MPEG-1 (1993) H.262 / MPEG-2 (1995) H.263 (1996) MPEG-4 Part 2 (1999) H.264 / AVC / MPEG-4 Part 10 (2003) H.265 / HEVC (2013) Future Video Coding (“FVC”) MPEG and ISO "Preliminary Joint Call for Evidence on Video Compression with Capability beyond HEVC.” (202?) Incremental improvements of transform-based & motion- compensated hybrid video coding schemes to meet the ever increasing resolution and frame rate requirements 3 Regional Video Standards SMPTE standards in the US VC-1 (2006) VC-2 (2008) China Information Industry Department standards AVS (2005) AVS+ (2012) AVS2.0 (2016) 4 Proprietary Video Formats Sorenson Spark On2 VP6, VP7 RealVideo DivX Popular in the past partly due to technical merits but mainly due to more suitable licensing schemes to a given application than standard video video formats with their patent royalties. 5 Royalty-free Video Formats Xiph.org Foundation
    [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]
  • Bitmovin's “Video Developer Report 2018,”
    MPEG MPEG VAST VAST HLS HLS DASH DASH H.264 H.264 AV1 AV1 HLS NATIVE NATIVE CMAF CMAF RTMP RTMP VP9 VP9 ANDROID ANDROID ROKU ROKU HTML5 HTML5 Video Developer MPEG VAST4.0 MPEG VAST4.0 HLS HLS DASH DASH Report 2018 H.264 H.264 AV1 AV1 NATIVE NATIVE CMAF CMAF ROKU RTMP ROKU RTMP VAST4.0 VAST4.0 VP9 VP9 ANDROID ANDROID HTML5 HTML5 DRM DRM MPEG MPEG VAST VAST DASH DASH AV1 HLS AV1 HLS NATIVE NATIVE H.264 H.264 CMAF CMAF RTMP RTMP VP9 VP9 ANDROID ANDROID ROKU ROKU MPEG VAST4.0 MPEG VAST4.0 HLS HLS DASH DASH H.264 H.264 AV1 AV1 NATIVE NATIVE CMAF CMAF ROKU ROKU Welcome to the 2018 Video Developer Report! First and foremost, I’d like to thank everyone for making the 2018 Video Developer Report possible! In its second year the report is wider both in scope and reach. With 456 survey submissions from over 67 countries, the report aims to provide a snapshot into the state of video technology in 2018, as well as a vision into what will be important in the next 12 months. This report would not be possible without the great support and participation of the video developer community. Thank you for your dedication to figuring it out. To making streaming video work despite the challenges of limited bandwidth and a fragmented consumer device landscape. We hope this report provides you with insights into what your peers are working on and the pain points that we are all experiencing. We have already learned a lot and are looking forward to the 2019 Video Developer Survey a year from now! Best Regards, StefanStefan Lederer Lederer CEO, Bitmovin Page 1 Key findings In 2018 H.264/AVC dominates video codec usage globally, used by 92% of developers in the survey.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Optimized AV1 Inter
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Optimized AV1 Inter Prediction using Binary classification techniques A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Software Engineering by Alex Kit Romero May 2020 The graduate project of Alex Kit Romero is approved: ____________________________________ ____________ Dr. Katya Mkrtchyan Date ____________________________________ ____________ Dr. Kyle Dewey Date ____________________________________ ____________ Dr. John J. Noga, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Dedication This project is dedicated to all of the Computer Science professors that I have come in contact with other the years who have inspired and encouraged me to pursue a career in computer science. The words and wisdom of these professors are what pushed me to try harder and accomplish more than I ever thought possible. I would like to give a big thanks to the open source community and my fellow cohort of computer science co-workers for always being there with answers to my numerous questions and inquiries. Without their guidance and expertise, I could not have been successful. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family who have supported and uplifted me throughout the years. Thank you for believing in me and always telling me to never give up. iii Table of Contents Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ ii Dedication .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended File Formats for Long-Term Archiving and for Web Dissemination in Phaidra
    Recommended file formats for long-term archiving and for web dissemination in Phaidra Edited by Gianluca Drago May 2019 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Premise This document is intended to provide an overview of the file formats to be used depending on two possible destinations of the digital document: long-term archiving uploading to Phaidra and subsequent web dissemination When the document uploaded to Phaidra is also the only saved file, the two destinations end up coinciding, but in general one will probably want to produce two different files, in two different formats, so as to meet the differences in requirements and use in the final destinations. In the following tables, the recommendations for long-term archiving are distinct from those for dissemination in Phaidra. There are no absolute criteria for choosing the file format. The choice is always dependent on different evaluations that the person who is carrying out the archiving will have to make on a case by case basis and will often result in a compromise between the best achievable quality and the limits imposed by the costs of production, processing and storage of files, as well as, for the preceding, by the opportunity of a conversion to a new format. 1 This choice is particularly significant from the perspective of long-term archiving, for which a quality that respects the authenticity and integrity of the original document and a format that guarantees long-term access to data are desirable. This document should be seen more as an aid to the reasoned choice of the person carrying out the archiving than as a list of guidelines to be followed to the letter.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Inspector Product Sheet (Pdf)
    INSPECTOR Because your lab only has so many people... SSIMPLUS VOD Monitor Inspector is the only video quality measurement software with the algorithm trusted by Hollywood to determine the best possible configuration for R&D groups, engineers and architects who set up VOD encoding and processing workflows or make purchasing recommendations. Video professionals can evaluate more encoders and transcoders with the fastest and most comprehensive solution in the business. From the start of your workflow to delivering to consumer endpoints, VOD Monitor Inspector is here to help ensure every step along the way works flawlessly. Easy-to-use tools provide: A/B testing for encoding configurations and purchasing decisions Sandbox environment for encoder or transcoder output troubleshooting “The SSIMPLUS score developed Creation of custom templates to identify best practices for specific content libraries by SSIMWAVE represents a Configurable automation to save time and eliminate manual QA/QC generational breakthrough in Side-by-side visual inspector to subjectively assess degradations the video industry.” Perceptual quality maps that provide pixel level graphic visualization –The Television Academy of content impairments Allows you to optimize network performance and improve quality Our Emmy Award-winning SSIMPLUS™ score mimics the accuracy of 100,000 human eyes. Know the score when it YOU CAN HOW OUR SEE THE SOFTWARE SEES DEGRADATION THE DEGRADATION comes to video quality NARROW IT DOWN TO THE The SSIMPLUS score is the most accurate measurement PIXEL LEVEL representing how end-viewers perceive video quality. Our score can tell exactly where video quality degrades. 18 34 59 72 87 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 BAD POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT Helping your workflow, work SSIMPLUS VOD Monitor Inspector helps ensure your video infrastructure is not negatively impacting content anywhere in your workflow.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper November 2017
    White paper November 2017 XperiaTM Z4 Tablet SGP771 White paper | Xperia™ Z4 Tablet Purpose of this document Sony product White papers are intended to give an overview of a product and provide details in relevant areas of technology. NOTE: The illustration that appears on the title page is for reference only. All screen images and elements are subject to change without prior notice. This document is published by Sony Mobile This White paper is published by: Communications Inc., without any warranty*. Improvements and changes to this text Sony Mobile Communications Inc., necessitated by typographical errors, 4-12-3 Higashi-Shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, inaccuracies of current information or improvements to programs and/or equipment Tokyo, 140-0002 Japan may be made by Sony Mobile Communications Inc. at any time and without notice. Such www.sonymobile.com changes will, however, be incorporated into new editions of this document. Printed versions are to be regarded as temporary reference copies only. © Sony Mobile Communications Inc., 2009-2017. All rights reserved. You are hereby granted a *All implied warranties, including without license to download and/or print a copy of this limitation the implied warranties of document. merchantability or fitness for a particular Any rights not expressly granted herein are purpose, are excluded. In no event shall Sony or its licensors be liable for incidental or reserved. consequential damages of any nature, including but not limited to lost profits or commercial loss, First released version (March 2015)
    [Show full text]