On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Ashok Kumar Mishra <
as...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
> Logically checking the condition if (energy < numSig[TEXT_LUMA][0]) is
> correct, but not if (energy == numSig[TEXT_LUMA][0]).
> I have sent two pdfs today and check how they have achieved a lot more
> than 9% what we achieved with almost applying similar concept.
>
numSig is the number of non-zero coefficients. The variable energy is the
sum of the absolute value of all the coefficients. Since the min value is
1, logically, energy < numSig can never occur; the lowest value is energy =
numSig.
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Bhavna Hariharan <
> bha...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Ashok Kumar Mishra <
>> as...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Bhavna Hariharan <
>>> bha...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Pradeep Ramachandran <
>>>> prad...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:20 PM, <bha...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>>>> # User Bhavna Hariharan <bha...@multicorewareinc.com>
>>>>>> # Date 1476275329 -19800
>>>>>> # Wed Oct 12 17:58:49 2016 +0530
>>>>>> # Node ID 854149baceefa075c3b1af12433680ffda2e3b64
>>>>>> # Parent c97805dad9148ad3cddba10a67ed5596508e8f86
>>>>>> limitTU: fix energy calculation used in limiting TU recursion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This commit changes the output of limit TU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff -r c97805dad914 -r 854149baceef source/encoder/search.cpp
>>>>>> --- a/source/encoder/search.cpp Thu Oct 13 17:53:48 2016 +0800
>>>>>> +++ b/source/encoder/search.cpp Wed Oct 12 17:58:49 2016 +0530
>>>>>> @@ -3420,14 +3420,15 @@
>>>>>> if (m_param->limitTU && bCheckSplit)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> // Stop recursion if the TU's energy level is minimal
>>>>>> + uint32_t numCoeff = trSize * trSize;
>>>>>> if (cbfFlag[TEXT_LUMA][0] == 0)
>>>>>> bCheckSplit = false;
>>>>>> - else if (numSig[TEXT_LUMA][0] < (cuGeom.numPartitions /
>>>>>> 16))
>>>>>> + else if (numSig[TEXT_LUMA][0] < (numCoeff / 64))
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> uint32_t energy = 0;
>>>>>> - for (uint32_t i = 0; i < cuGeom.numPartitions; i++)
>>>>>> + for (uint32_t i = 0; i < numCoeff; i++)
>>>>>> energy += abs(coeffCurY[i]);
>>>>>> - if (energy < numSig[TEXT_LUMA][0])
>>>>>> + if (energy == numSig[TEXT_LUMA][0])
>>>>>> bCheckSplit = false;
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you give an example where CheckSplit is disabled here? I am
>>>>> finding it hard to reason conditions under which this condition is
>>>>> satisfied.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Energy will be equal to the number of significant coefficients when
>>>> each of the non-zero coefficients is one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I feel this condition may not be satisfied(very rare). You are
>>> calculating energy as sum of abs values of transform coefficients and
>>> checking with a threshold(number of coefficients).
>>> There is a very less chance that both will be same. Either it should be
>>> less than equal to or greater than equal to. This may be a test to
>>> replicate a zero coefficient TU block. We
>>> should check the subjective quality particularly for limit TU,
>>> considering larger TUs produce more ringing artifacts.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The number of significant coefficients can never be less than the energy,
>> if the energy is greater than the number of coefficients we don't want to
>> limit the TU depth. We noticed a performance improvement up to 9% for
>> certain videos. We checked the visual quality for the videos and have not
>> observed any ringing artifacts so far.
>>
>> croud run:
>>
>> with energy check - encoded 500 frames in 545.41s (0.93 fps), 8878.75
>> kb/s, Avg QP:38.00, SSIM Mean Y: 0.8659922 ( 8.729 dB)
>> without energy check - encoded 500 frames in 568.05s (0.85 fps), 8879.27
>> kb/s, Avg QP:38.00, SSIM Mean Y: 0.8660624 ( 8.731 dB)
>> Improvement in performance - 8.6%
>> Hit percentage of energy check - 61%
>>
>> kimono:
>>
>> with energy check - encoded 240 frames in 286.38s (0.84 fps), 4361.14
>> kb/s, Avg QP:26.83, SSIM Mean Y: 0.9579188 (13.759 dB)
>> without energy check - encoded 240 frames in 312.36s (0.77 fps), 4361.61
>> kb/s, Avg QP:26.83, SSIM Mean Y: 0.9579364 (13.761 dB)
>> Improvement in performance - 8.3%
>> Hit percentage of energy check - 70%
>>
>>
Thanks for the data - it is very surprising that this condition is hit so
often but I guess data doesn't lie :-)
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> x265-devel mailing list
>>>>>> x265-devel@videolan.org
>>>>>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> x265-devel mailing list
>>>>> x265-devel@videolan.org
>>>>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> x265-devel mailing list
>>>> x265-devel@videolan.org
>>>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x265-devel mailing list
>>> x265-devel@videolan.org
>>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> x265-devel mailing list
>> x265-devel@videolan.org
>> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x265-devel mailing list
> x265-devel@videolan.org
> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
>
>
_______________________________________________
x265-devel mailing list
x265-devel@videolan.org
https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
