July 28th, 2006, 02:14 AM | #211 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Quote:
Have finally got the video downloaded. Do you have anything recorded at full quality settings? This is around 23.6Mb/s, and having snapshot it in VLC and examined the stills, I can see lots of blocking and faults as you can expect in highly compressed footage. Being 1.3mp and 27fps also put further load on. Could you post something at the highest but rate at 720p and 25fps, that would be an better indication? I take it that the color etc looks loverly, much better than some footage I have seen. I can judge the true balance between this sort of man made colours, and some grass. This Micron sensor rendition is giving it a boost, over the compression appearance, but I think that the camera has done a loverly job at compression in 23.6Mb/s. Thanks Wayne.. |
|
July 28th, 2006, 06:33 AM | #212 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
There is no Mpeg4 type compression thats visible as its simply a stream of 70% quality Jpegs taken at 1280x1024. The image quality of the frame will be the same as that from one of the early digital cameras set to 70% but here there are 27 of them each second for about 3hrs! Ive never managed to film at 100%, I do have some nice 85% quality film from the Alps with a fisheye. http://www.tacx-video.com/images/HD2...assic-HD/DV-HD There are also some crap looking Canon GL2 images in the same spots for comparison. |
|
July 28th, 2006, 10:49 PM | #213 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
100% is probably the only mode we should be looking at. The percentages are not representative of compression ratio, 100 is far off 1:1 (but how much?). 85% might be good, but I would have to see the compression ratio.
So, you would have to go better than DVCPROHD's 6:1, and 4:1 or better (like 2:1) is preferably. If you frame for 1280*720 @25/24fps, it would be interesting to see how high you can go in quality modes. It has to do with maximum throughputs of the compressor and data path/transmission independently. By lowering frame rate and screen size, you reduce the capacity used, possibly, allowing a higher quality mode to be used. I was viewing a snapshots from vlc in the normal windows picture viewer, and there were no grids but inaccurate blocks of pixels. Snapshot a number of frames through out the sequence, they should turn up in pictures folder. Zoom into the road surface and you will see disjointed pattern of blocks with lines and shapes in them, look around the car lights and rides suits colored patterns as well. This video has a lot of plainish surfaces, which could have boosted compressibility of ones with details quiet a bit. MJpeg gets artifacts as well, because it is not lossless, and maybe even not visually lossless, though that might be the 100% mode. At 23.6Mb/s, it is less than DV's 25mb/s, and much less than DVCPROHD. DVCPRO gets true SD pro quality at 50Mb/s, which is somewhere around 3.1:1 (I think) and Digital Beta got around 2.3:1 at 80+mb/s I think (long time since reading up on these). You can understand why I dropped out of the current generation of cameras and am waiting for the future models, my heart is in close to visually lossless territory or more. If it can't produce quality better than AVCHD, then I am not bothered, if it can produce DVCPROHD quality I am mildly interested (takes substantial time and effort setting up and coping with a custom rig). If it can exceed it, then it is worth and the target is the next 100Mb/s H264 frame based Intra codec, which you will be able to match by doing an inter coding format at 100mb/s. As far as MJpeg, the advantage is really if you can run 720p at 100Mb/s, which is pretty high in quality compared to what DVCPROHD will, normally, let you run at (due to being locked into lower resolution/data rates for low screen formats etc from my understanding). |
July 28th, 2006, 11:39 PM | #214 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
I had a look at those stills, did you shoot them in 640*512?
The 512 ones, which I guess you must mean are not the GL-2 ones, look substantially better (but this is a lot to do with the way the cameras render the image) but there is still attracting there present. In web graphics I think the rule is to use 100% quality (but rather use GIF's etc) I definitely found a substantial drop off below 85% in testing. I notice that one camera has a low compression ratio than the other, reflected in the image. But it is hard to get a comparison here, because they are shot in two different resolutions, and the canon frame is not a native straight frame, so recompression comes into it. If you shot in hi res and then down scaled the Elphel footage you automatically also get some advantage. Have you got the native un-retouched frames? Definitely makes the GL photos look second rate. Can you soot 85%+ at a higher resolution than this, like 720/25p? |
July 29th, 2006, 01:29 AM | #215 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Microdrive pricing:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=29927
Surprisingly cheap, the sort of thing that could go into the 353. |
July 29th, 2006, 09:38 PM | #216 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Magna, Utah
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29th, 2006, 09:40 PM | #217 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Magna, Utah
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29th, 2006, 09:46 PM | #218 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Magna, Utah
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29th, 2006, 09:48 PM | #219 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Magna, Utah
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29th, 2006, 10:17 PM | #220 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Quote:
Re-edit: Forgot to ask, what pixel formats does the Elphel do Mjpeg in, just 4:2:0 and monochrome? Last edited by Wayne Morellini; July 29th, 2006 at 11:38 PM. |
|
July 29th, 2006, 11:28 PM | #221 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
Quote:
I mentioned a way to convert the bayer data into a normalised colour image before (I think through pixel by pixel conversion to make the color closer together for compression). But you can normalise the whole bayer pattern to one colour or full monochrome, at once, you then have a much smoother, more compressible image, that you can also apply more simple compression techniques to on a bit plain basis and difference compression etc, like JBIG (I think). To restore to bayer you already know the bayer pattern to reverse the process. You could do this by simply working out the normal color value from estimated difference to the pixel value itself, or through normal interpolation. (R30% and B10% Green60% etc). There were some other schemes mentioned in the Digital Cinema Threads: To split the bayer pattern into 3-4 separate bit-mapped images, one for each of the sub pixel RGB colors, compress separately, or do differential compression on images and compress the base image, I think cineform might have eventually did something like this (I got to read their white paper sometime). Good results were reported. Second alternative, when 3864 wide sensor, through interpolation (to stop fly screen image problems) can extract 1280*720 bayer image, then compress and send that? Thanks Wayne. |
|
July 29th, 2006, 11:31 PM | #222 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
I forgot again:
I have been meaning to ask, is there anyway to feed in a compression routine, or formulae into the Elphel, without having to learn FPGA code to do it? Thanks Again. |
July 30th, 2006, 12:22 AM | #223 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Magna, Utah
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
|
|
July 30th, 2006, 10:50 AM | #224 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,762
|
What are the existing results from monochrome compression, what data rate/low compression ratio is possible?
I have been mining for gold in the webpedia, and things are a bit confusing (as you can understand). From the pedia Jpeg is 24 bits per pixel, is this so, or is it 4:2:0, or 4:2:2, in MJPEG? They also mention 12 bit color for Jpeg, is, that supported in monochrome, or colour modes? This seems very interesting for us, because 100Mb/s is under 2:1 720p, or 4:1 1080p in monochrome bayer, well and truly in quality territory, even with 10-12bits, it is still looking good for 720p, providing compression holds up. Colour accuracy under bayer compression will suffer a fair bit unless very low compression ratios are used under Jpeg (so 720p would be the sweet spot at 100mb/s). Using the alternative techniques mentioned before would perhaps do that at higher compression. I've got to be such an idiot to miss this. Anybody willing to give this a burl on the existing 333, to see what the results are on it's (was that 70 or 30mb/s) datarate? Ben Syyverson had a debayer I think, but no longer has it listed there: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...gins/linbayer/ http://www.google.com/search?q=linba...ls=en&filter=0 He might still be around to contact. Here is some interesting links on debayering for people: http://www.insflug.org/raw/software/tools/dcraw.php3 http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~ders...erpolator.html http://www-ise.stanford.edu/~tingchen/ Thanks Andrey Wayne. |
July 30th, 2006, 01:20 PM | #225 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: West Country, UK
Posts: 141
|
linbayer
Wayne -- I tried to find a contact for Ben Syverson to buy a copy of his linbayer (After Effects plug-in). Google turned up nothing new, but Ben had a plug-in called dvMatte (a keyer not a debayer) advertised on a video website (www.dvgarage.com). I emailed them (info@dvgarage.com) to ask if they could give me a contact for Ben, or forward my request about linbayer to him, but no reply after about a month now. All leads to Ben seem dead...
John. |
| ||||||
|
|