Open you mind NEWBEE and embrace different forms of streaming- ones that already exists- ones that work excellently on 90% of computers out there and excellently on the other 10%, provided you don't use any other application simultaneously.
Big difference between a ubiquity argument and a quality one. Yes, agreed, Flash video is everywhere. But no, the quality isn't very good in an absolute sense and it's absolutely awful if you factor in quality for consumed processing power.
Big difference between a ubiquity argument and a quality one. Yes, agreed, Flash video is everywhere. But no, the quality isn't very good in an absolute sense and it's absolutely awful if you factor in quality for consumed processing power.
The quality of FLash VOD is pretty decent- not HD- but decent. Much better than YouTube and HULU.
So Apple wants to mask artifacts by introducing random noise that makes it less obvious that an artifact occurred? So I won't notice it because thoe whole screen will be snowy?
Uhhh.... ok.
Okay spend all this time to clean up the video and get rid of noise only to re-introduce it back into the video stream. The basis principle is that human eye can easily filter out the noise verses missing blocks of information.
The problem is when the video blocks you can also get distorted audio and mixing noise into the audio stream would not be a good thing
Okay spend all this time to clean up the video and get rid of noise only to re-introduce it back into the video stream. The basis principle is that human eye can easily filter out the noise verses missing blocks of information.
Getting rid of noise like film grain isn't desirable, DNR destroys detail.
Compression artifacts and noise are not the same thing. Compression artifacts usually are present in the form of "blocks". This is a result of the compression routine "grouping" together like colors, and even going so far as to make like colors more similar than they originally are. I don't know if my explanation makes any sense to you, the reader, but it makes sense to me!
Noise on the other hand, is just that....it's noise. A bit like turning on the TV when the cable is out. Only in this case, the noise would be MUCH more subtle.
Applying noise to reduce compression artifacts or banding in still imagery or videos is a very old trick of digital artists. I do this in Photoshop and Final Cut Pro all the time. My guess is that Apple would like to apply a similar trick to heavily compressed streaming video. I doubt it will be part of the video file, but rather, a post effect handled by Quicktime or iTunes or whatever.
If this is the case, they're not really doing anything new. About the only thing that is new about this is that you won't need to manually apply the noise effect yourself. Apple's software will take care of it for you.
What the hell do you mean by a VHS tape image degradation looking "natural"?!? Whenever I look at reality, things do not look "degradated", mkay? Any kind of "degradation" due to it being "recorded" or "streamed" or whatever have you is not natural, it's by definition, artificial. mkay?
It's a more acceptable form of noise and easier to ignore. Some film makers prefer to shoot on old-style film because it gives the footage character and a different mood. When the footage is shot on crisp HD, it often looks more fake - this is especially true for CG movies. I'm not suggesting that VHS quality is where we should aim for streaming video, just that the artifacts were more acceptable the way they appeared than how they appear in digital compression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Simple- make Macs handle FLASH properly. Streaming Flash looks great.
Modern Flash streaming uses H264 and they can often use high bitrates for downstream-only. I reckon this patent is more for ichat real-time streaming where the bitrates are limited to your upstream connection (easily under 500k) and fast compression where artifacts can appear.
In case anyone is interested in looking this up, it's essentially dithering, but performed on the client side, as well as being dynamic. I haven't read the entire patent, but I'd imagine that's what it is.
As for "Flash video is better", that's total nonsense. FLV compression simply isn't up there with the more advanced codecs.
It's a more acceptable form of noise and easier to ignore.
As far as I understand the HVS model, artificial detail is preferable to softness. There's a reason why major studios use edge enhancement and sharpening on major blockbusters.
Quote:
Some film makers prefer to shoot on old-style film because it gives the footage character and a different mood. When the footage is shot on crisp HD, it often looks more fake - this is especially true for CG movies.
This makes no sense unless you're talking about some film with very low resolution. Many movies in HD were shot on film, old ones at that.
Quote:
I'm not suggesting that VHS quality is where we should aim for streaming video, just that the artifacts were more acceptable the way they appeared than how they appear in digital compression.
Well, I can apply blur filters on playback if I feel like it. Dot crawl and rainbowing might be harder.
Simple- make Macs handle FLASH properly. Streaming Flash looks great.
Either you're trolling (unlike you :P), or you can't be bothered to do even the slightest bit of research,
1. Flash performance is Adobe's fault (as is evident from playing H.264 video from YouTube via ClickToFlash [10% usage per core, versus Flash embedded 65% usage per core).
2. Flash, at least on the desktop, has access to the higher quality "Main profiles" of H.264, mobile devices in particular use "baseline profile" which doesn't support some of the fancy quantizations and require less CPU cycles to decode (also making it cheaper to implement decoder in hardware), this baseline profile will also result in a lower quality image.
Either you're trolling (unlike you :P), or you can't be bothered to do even the slightest bit of research,
1. Flash performance is Adobe's fault (as is evident from playing H.264 video from YouTube via ClickToFlash [10% usage per core, versus Flash embedded 65% usage per core).
2. Flash, at least on the desktop, has access to the higher quality "Main profiles" of H.264, mobile devices in particular use "baseline profile" which doesn't support some of the fancy quantizations and require less CPU cycles to decode (also making it cheaper to implement decoder in hardware), this baseline profile will also result in a lower quality image.
I'm assuming this is somewhat analogous to one sound wave cancelling out another?
I think it is more analogous to dithering in audio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
... mixing noise into the audio stream would not be a good thing
It is routinely done in digital audio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHicks
Long time lurker, first time poster.
In case anyone is interested in looking this up, it's essentially dithering, but performed on the client side, as well as being dynamic. I haven't read the entire patent, but I'd imagine that's what it is.
Modern Flash streaming uses H264 and they can often use high bitrates for downstream-only. I reckon this patent is more for ichat real-time streaming where the bitrates are limited to your upstream connection (easily under 500k) and fast compression where artifacts can appear.
OMG- THE post of the day with a real intelligent answer. Thank you , thank you. You've explained everything- really!
Adding some blur is a normal way for graphic designers to clean up an image. It works great in some areas, and badly in others.
Likewise, if you make your TV less sharp (or even change the brightness and contrast on your TV), you can dramatically reduce the visibility of compression artefacts from digital cable TV.... and the picture looks clearer.
I would assume that the decoder has a great idea at where the edges of a compressed block of picture are, and can then look at the range of colours in a block and surrounding block and whether the edges predict a visible change in colouring - implying a high likelihood that it's a compression artefact rather than something from the movie itself. So applying a blur at those points would work rather well.
I just hope that one day, in the far future, maybe there will be a 1,024-core mac that can play a youtube video over a broadband link without stuttering.
Modern Flash streaming uses H264 and they can often use high bitrates for downstream-only. I reckon this patent is more for ichat real-time streaming where the bitrates are limited to your upstream connection (easily under 500k) and fast compression where artifacts can appear.
Hmm iChat chatter is making the rounds again recently. I reckon we are going to see iChat on the iPhone sooner than later.
I think Apple should spend their time making QuickTime even remotely as fast or standards-complete as x264, the QuickTime H.264 encode is an absolute joke among x264 devs. They have a lot they could work on there, rather than filing a patent on a dubiously useful technique like this...
These sources are obviously x264 devs, so I usually take with a grain of salt coming from one party in a vs., but I think x264 is far and away, beyond conclusively, better. Apple, improve here.
Comments
Open you mind NEWBEE and embrace different forms of streaming- ones that already exists- ones that work excellently on 90% of computers out there and excellently on the other 10%, provided you don't use any other application simultaneously.
Big difference between a ubiquity argument and a quality one. Yes, agreed, Flash video is everywhere. But no, the quality isn't very good in an absolute sense and it's absolutely awful if you factor in quality for consumed processing power.
Big difference between a ubiquity argument and a quality one. Yes, agreed, Flash video is everywhere. But no, the quality isn't very good in an absolute sense and it's absolutely awful if you factor in quality for consumed processing power.
The quality of FLash VOD is pretty decent- not HD- but decent. Much better than YouTube and HULU.
So Apple wants to mask artifacts by introducing random noise that makes it less obvious that an artifact occurred? So I won't notice it because thoe whole screen will be snowy?
Uhhh.... ok.
Okay spend all this time to clean up the video and get rid of noise only to re-introduce it back into the video stream. The basis principle is that human eye can easily filter out the noise verses missing blocks of information.
The problem is when the video blocks you can also get distorted audio and mixing noise into the audio stream would not be a good thing
Okay spend all this time to clean up the video and get rid of noise only to re-introduce it back into the video stream. The basis principle is that human eye can easily filter out the noise verses missing blocks of information.
Getting rid of noise like film grain isn't desirable, DNR destroys detail.
Noise on the other hand, is just that....it's noise. A bit like turning on the TV when the cable is out. Only in this case, the noise would be MUCH more subtle.
Applying noise to reduce compression artifacts or banding in still imagery or videos is a very old trick of digital artists. I do this in Photoshop and Final Cut Pro all the time. My guess is that Apple would like to apply a similar trick to heavily compressed streaming video. I doubt it will be part of the video file, but rather, a post effect handled by Quicktime or iTunes or whatever.
If this is the case, they're not really doing anything new. About the only thing that is new about this is that you won't need to manually apply the noise effect yourself. Apple's software will take care of it for you.
What the hell do you mean by a VHS tape image degradation looking "natural"?!? Whenever I look at reality, things do not look "degradated", mkay? Any kind of "degradation" due to it being "recorded" or "streamed" or whatever have you is not natural, it's by definition, artificial. mkay?
It's a more acceptable form of noise and easier to ignore. Some film makers prefer to shoot on old-style film because it gives the footage character and a different mood. When the footage is shot on crisp HD, it often looks more fake - this is especially true for CG movies. I'm not suggesting that VHS quality is where we should aim for streaming video, just that the artifacts were more acceptable the way they appeared than how they appear in digital compression.
Simple- make Macs handle FLASH properly. Streaming Flash looks great.
Modern Flash streaming uses H264 and they can often use high bitrates for downstream-only. I reckon this patent is more for ichat real-time streaming where the bitrates are limited to your upstream connection (easily under 500k) and fast compression where artifacts can appear.
In case anyone is interested in looking this up, it's essentially dithering, but performed on the client side, as well as being dynamic. I haven't read the entire patent, but I'd imagine that's what it is.
As for "Flash video is better", that's total nonsense. FLV compression simply isn't up there with the more advanced codecs.
It's a more acceptable form of noise and easier to ignore.
As far as I understand the HVS model, artificial detail is preferable to softness. There's a reason why major studios use edge enhancement and sharpening on major blockbusters.
Some film makers prefer to shoot on old-style film because it gives the footage character and a different mood. When the footage is shot on crisp HD, it often looks more fake - this is especially true for CG movies.
This makes no sense unless you're talking about some film with very low resolution. Many movies in HD were shot on film, old ones at that.
I'm not suggesting that VHS quality is where we should aim for streaming video, just that the artifacts were more acceptable the way they appeared than how they appear in digital compression.
Well, I can apply blur filters on playback if I feel like it. Dot crawl and rainbowing might be harder.
As for "Flash video is better", that's total nonsense. FLV compression simply isn't up there with the more advanced codecs.
FLV supports H.264
FLV supports H.264
Does Flash support HARDWARE decoding of H.264?
Simple- make Macs handle FLASH properly. Streaming Flash looks great.
Either you're trolling (unlike you :P), or you can't be bothered to do even the slightest bit of research,
1. Flash performance is Adobe's fault (as is evident from playing H.264 video from YouTube via ClickToFlash [10% usage per core, versus Flash embedded 65% usage per core).
2. Flash, at least on the desktop, has access to the higher quality "Main profiles" of H.264, mobile devices in particular use "baseline profile" which doesn't support some of the fancy quantizations and require less CPU cycles to decode (also making it cheaper to implement decoder in hardware), this baseline profile will also result in a lower quality image.
Either you're trolling (unlike you :P), or you can't be bothered to do even the slightest bit of research,
1. Flash performance is Adobe's fault (as is evident from playing H.264 video from YouTube via ClickToFlash [10% usage per core, versus Flash embedded 65% usage per core).
2. Flash, at least on the desktop, has access to the higher quality "Main profiles" of H.264, mobile devices in particular use "baseline profile" which doesn't support some of the fancy quantizations and require less CPU cycles to decode (also making it cheaper to implement decoder in hardware), this baseline profile will also result in a lower quality image.
Are you talking about on a Mac, PC , OR both?
I'm assuming this is somewhat analogous to one sound wave cancelling out another?
I think it is more analogous to dithering in audio.
... mixing noise into the audio stream would not be a good thing
It is routinely done in digital audio.
Long time lurker, first time poster.
In case anyone is interested in looking this up, it's essentially dithering, but performed on the client side, as well as being dynamic. I haven't read the entire patent, but I'd imagine that's what it is.
.
You beat me to it.
Modern Flash streaming uses H264 and they can often use high bitrates for downstream-only. I reckon this patent is more for ichat real-time streaming where the bitrates are limited to your upstream connection (easily under 500k) and fast compression where artifacts can appear.
OMG- THE post of the day with a real intelligent answer. Thank you , thank you. You've explained everything- really!
Likewise, if you make your TV less sharp (or even change the brightness and contrast on your TV), you can dramatically reduce the visibility of compression artefacts from digital cable TV.... and the picture looks clearer.
I would assume that the decoder has a great idea at where the edges of a compressed block of picture are, and can then look at the range of colours in a block and surrounding block and whether the edges predict a visible change in colouring - implying a high likelihood that it's a compression artefact rather than something from the movie itself. So applying a blur at those points would work rather well.
I just hope that one day, in the far future, maybe there will be a 1,024-core mac that can play a youtube video over a broadband link without stuttering.
Modern Flash streaming uses H264 and they can often use high bitrates for downstream-only. I reckon this patent is more for ichat real-time streaming where the bitrates are limited to your upstream connection (easily under 500k) and fast compression where artifacts can appear.
Hmm iChat chatter is making the rounds again recently. I reckon we are going to see iChat on the iPhone sooner than later.
These sources are obviously x264 devs, so I usually take with a grain of salt coming from one party in a vs., but I think x264 is far and away, beyond conclusively, better. Apple, improve here.
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=102