Hello, These last 2 months, I have talked again with Monty Montgomery about the NHW Project and he told me that Xiph.org would like to encourage the NHW Project development.That's just great! I'll see what Monty will do on his side (and when he has time), but he also told me that the NHW codec has merits but there must be an effort to demonstrate them. The advantages, merits of the NHW codec are the neatness advantage, NHW pictures have more neatness (and a little less precision), so it's a choice if you prefer more neatness or more precision, but according to my visual tests, neatness is quite pleasing... and there is also speed, computation time. But it is not so evident to demonstrate them, because the NHW codec performs bad on all metrics because it modifies image to give it more neatness (this also includes a slight denoising)... For speed, the NHW codec is written in plain C code, there are no C optimization, no SIMD optimization, no multithreading, whereas the other codecs (x265,VP9,x264,WebP,...) have them and are highly optimized, so time/speed comparison will not be fair... Then there are innovations in the NHW codec: like a new fast wavelet transform, a multistage residual coding, 3 new entropy coding schemes and other things like for example interesting pre- and post- processing based on a laplacian kernel, a feedback correction,etc... Monty told me :"If you don't have access to web space you can use for documenting and advertising the project, we can certainly offer that." Are you interested in documentation of the innovations of the NHW codec? As I am still very busy (but this will change), do some of you would like to make these demonstrations? So to finish, I think it's a great deal that Xiph.org proposes!!!, if you want more of this collaboration, want to help in the development, documentation, demonstration of the NHW Project, do not hesitate to show up on the forum. Many thanks again to Xiph!, hope this will materialize in the next months. Cheers, Raphael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20170825/d577caf9/attachment.html>
Hi Raphael, On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Raphael Canut <nhwcodec at gmail.com> wrote:> I'll see what Monty will do on his side (and when he has time), but he also > told me that the NHW codec has merits but there must be an effort to > demonstrate them.Well, if you want to pursue a collaborative project, you need to attract others to work on it. Perhaps 'demo' is the wrong word... I'd say the project needs to have a story, and a demonstration of the technology is part of what makes the story concrete.> But it is not so evident to demonstrate them, because the NHW codec performs > bad on all metrics because it modifies image to give it more neatness (this > also includes a slight denoising)... For speed, the NHW codec is written in > plain C code, there are no C optimization, no SIMD optimization, no > multithreading, whereas the other codecs (x265,VP9,x264,WebP,...) have them > and are highly optimized, so time/speed comparison will not be fair...Optimization at this stage of development is misplaced. You should have a good idea of the complexity bounds-- this is what other engineers care about-- but so long as you can demonstrate that your approach does something unique and useful in a way that draws interest, that's what you need.> Then there are innovations in the NHW codec: like a new fast wavelet > transform, a multistage residual coding, 3 new entropy coding schemes and > other things like for example interesting pre- and post- processing based on > a laplacian kernel, a feedback correction,etc...All these things have been done before... how are your approaches unique? What references do your versions draw from? Build on? One reason to be familiar with (and use the language) of the state of the art is to provide a shared context and terminology in which others can understand what you're doing.> Monty told me :"If you don't have access to web space you can use for > documenting and advertising the project, we can certainly offer that."Absolutely.> Are you interested in documentation of the innovations of the NHW codec? As > I am still very busy (but this will change), do some of you would like to > make these demonstrations? > > So to finish, I think it's a great deal that Xiph.org proposes!!!, if you > want more of this collaboration, want to help in the development, > documentation, demonstration of the NHW Project, do not hesitate to show up > on the forum. > > Many thanks again to Xiph!, hope this will materialize in the next months.Good wishes to you too! Cheers, Monty> > Cheers, > Raphael > > _______________________________________________ > theora mailing list > theora at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/theora >
Hi Monty, Thank you very much for your answer!> Well, if you want to pursue a collaborative project, you need toattract others to work on it. Perhaps 'demo' is the wrong word... I'd say the project needs to have a story, and a demonstration of the technology is part of what makes the story concrete. I have actually huge difficulties to attract other people to work on the NHW Project... In fact there is currently just one highly skilled researcher from IIT Bombay that gives little of his time to the study of directional wavelet transforms and their implementation in a codec such as NHW.Yes I will have to make a demonstation of the technology, but I am not really skilled in making web page demos with meaningful and well-made graphs, animations,... I fear that my demos will be rather mean and not really attractive, and finally deserve the project.> You should have a good idea of the complexity boundsFor example, a comparison of the totally unoptimized NHW codec with the extremely optimized x264 intra: NHW is 3x times faster to encode and 1.2x time faster to decode than x264.> All these things have been done before...Well, I was very sincere when I said that I tought they were innovations... For my fast DWT implementation (I did it in Feb 2007), I never saw such one in the litterature and on the Internet... it's the same for at least 2 of the 3 entropy coding schemes... But apparently I was wrong, could you give me reference to prior art.>> Monty told me :"If you don't have access to web space you can use for >> documenting and advertising the project, we can certainly offer that.">Absolutely.How can this materialize? Will the web space be Xiph.org entitled? So I will try to make a demonstration of the NHW project technology to attract interest.Do you have advice Monty, software for graphs,... (because your demo pages are awesome!)? Many thanks again! Cheers, Raphael 2017-08-30 10:16 GMT+02:00 <xiphmont at xiph.org>:> Hi Raphael, > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Raphael Canut <nhwcodec at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'll see what Monty will do on his side (and when he has time), but he > also > > told me that the NHW codec has merits but there must be an effort to > > demonstrate them. > > Well, if you want to pursue a collaborative project, you need to > attract others to work on it. Perhaps 'demo' is the wrong word... I'd > say the project needs to have a story, and a demonstration of the > technology is part of what makes the story concrete. > > > But it is not so evident to demonstrate them, because the NHW codec > performs > > bad on all metrics because it modifies image to give it more neatness > (this > > also includes a slight denoising)... For speed, the NHW codec is written > in > > plain C code, there are no C optimization, no SIMD optimization, no > > multithreading, whereas the other codecs (x265,VP9,x264,WebP,...) have > them > > and are highly optimized, so time/speed comparison will not be fair... > > Optimization at this stage of development is misplaced. You should > have a good idea of the complexity bounds-- this is what other > engineers care about-- but so long as you can demonstrate that your > approach does something unique and useful in a way that draws > interest, that's what you need. > > > Then there are innovations in the NHW codec: like a new fast wavelet > > transform, a multistage residual coding, 3 new entropy coding schemes and > > other things like for example interesting pre- and post- processing > based on > > a laplacian kernel, a feedback correction,etc... > > All these things have been done before... how are your approaches > unique? What references do your versions draw from? Build on? One > reason to be familiar with (and use the language) of the state of the > art is to provide a shared context and terminology in which others can > understand what you're doing. > > > Monty told me :"If you don't have access to web space you can use for > > documenting and advertising the project, we can certainly offer that." > > Absolutely. > > > Are you interested in documentation of the innovations of the NHW codec? > As > > I am still very busy (but this will change), do some of you would like to > > make these demonstrations? > > > > So to finish, I think it's a great deal that Xiph.org proposes!!!, if you > > want more of this collaboration, want to help in the development, > > documentation, demonstration of the NHW Project, do not hesitate to show > up > > on the forum. > > > > Many thanks again to Xiph!, hope this will materialize in the next > months. > > Good wishes to you too! > > Cheers, > Monty > > > > > Cheers, > > Raphael > > > > _______________________________________________ > > theora mailing list > > theora at xiph.org > > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/theora > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20170830/4a9d5ded/attachment.html>
Hello,> What references do your versions draw from?I think I made a mistake! In fact my DWT implementation is "implied" in the lifting scheme, but it could be slower than the lifting scheme because it does not use the lifting steps.So I think we can replace my DWT implementation in the NHW codec by the classic lifting scheme! -Does the lifting scheme patented?- For the entropy coding, I think there is new things. For the multistage residual coding, this is not new, but I have never seen it applied to an image codec... Feedback correction is not new, but I think it's old enough to be patent-free.I also did not see it in an image codec. Preprocessing (with a laplacian kernel) is interesting in the NHW codec, because it retains the details, grain that would be normally washed out by increased wavelet quantization. There are also other processing in the NHW codec (all selected and optimized for speed), so I will try to make a technology demonstration.A little help from Xiph? The other advantage of the NHW codec is that it is royalty- and patent- free.Do you see at first some patented technology used? Cheers, Raphael 2017-08-30 10:16 GMT+02:00 <xiphmont at xiph.org>:> Hi Raphael, > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Raphael Canut <nhwcodec at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'll see what Monty will do on his side (and when he has time), but he > also > > told me that the NHW codec has merits but there must be an effort to > > demonstrate them. > > Well, if you want to pursue a collaborative project, you need to > attract others to work on it. Perhaps 'demo' is the wrong word... I'd > say the project needs to have a story, and a demonstration of the > technology is part of what makes the story concrete. > > > But it is not so evident to demonstrate them, because the NHW codec > performs > > bad on all metrics because it modifies image to give it more neatness > (this > > also includes a slight denoising)... For speed, the NHW codec is written > in > > plain C code, there are no C optimization, no SIMD optimization, no > > multithreading, whereas the other codecs (x265,VP9,x264,WebP,...) have > them > > and are highly optimized, so time/speed comparison will not be fair... > > Optimization at this stage of development is misplaced. You should > have a good idea of the complexity bounds-- this is what other > engineers care about-- but so long as you can demonstrate that your > approach does something unique and useful in a way that draws > interest, that's what you need. > > > Then there are innovations in the NHW codec: like a new fast wavelet > > transform, a multistage residual coding, 3 new entropy coding schemes and > > other things like for example interesting pre- and post- processing > based on > > a laplacian kernel, a feedback correction,etc... > > All these things have been done before... how are your approaches > unique? What references do your versions draw from? Build on? One > reason to be familiar with (and use the language) of the state of the > art is to provide a shared context and terminology in which others can > understand what you're doing. > > > Monty told me :"If you don't have access to web space you can use for > > documenting and advertising the project, we can certainly offer that." > > Absolutely. > > > Are you interested in documentation of the innovations of the NHW codec? > As > > I am still very busy (but this will change), do some of you would like to > > make these demonstrations? > > > > So to finish, I think it's a great deal that Xiph.org proposes!!!, if you > > want more of this collaboration, want to help in the development, > > documentation, demonstration of the NHW Project, do not hesitate to show > up > > on the forum. > > > > Many thanks again to Xiph!, hope this will materialize in the next > months. > > Good wishes to you too! > > Cheers, > Monty > > > > > Cheers, > > Raphael > > > > _______________________________________________ > > theora mailing list > > theora at xiph.org > > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/theora > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20170901/a328339b/attachment.html>
Hello, Just a quick message.> the project needs to have a storyFor now actually it's a rather sad story... I made 90% of the NHW codec back in 2007 and 2008.And for more than 10 years now, I try to "sell" it with main argument: speed, power consumption.I figured that if you have a car that consumes 5L of gas per 100km, 50-60L per 100km or 250-300L per 100km, your choice is evident and very quick... But this strategy lamentably failed!... Now Monty is right:> so long as you can demonstrate that your approach does something > unique and useful in a way that draws interest, that's what you need.What is unique in the NHW Project is the neatness approach.The NHW codec enhances image neatness whereas the classic codecs tend to decrease image neatness but have in return a very good precision.So in fact it's a choice, the NHW codec is not better or worse than the other codecs, it is different.On some images more neatness will be more pleasant, on some others more precision will be more pleasant, and according to my test this is 50-50.Nevertheless, the big drawback of the NHW codec is that it really lacks of precision on slowly varying contrast areas (including blur), so it performs better on rather well-defined images (for example with no strong JPEG artifacts). So now I think I have to put forward NHW Project unique approach and innovations, to try to catch attention. Monty, it would be really great if we can discuss about it as your advice are much useful. The opinions of the community would be also great and very welcome! Cheers, Raphael 2017-08-30 10:16 GMT+02:00 <xiphmont at xiph.org>:> Hi Raphael, > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Raphael Canut <nhwcodec at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'll see what Monty will do on his side (and when he has time), but he > also > > told me that the NHW codec has merits but there must be an effort to > > demonstrate them. > > Well, if you want to pursue a collaborative project, you need to > attract others to work on it. Perhaps 'demo' is the wrong word... I'd > say the project needs to have a story, and a demonstration of the > technology is part of what makes the story concrete. > > > But it is not so evident to demonstrate them, because the NHW codec > performs > > bad on all metrics because it modifies image to give it more neatness > (this > > also includes a slight denoising)... For speed, the NHW codec is written > in > > plain C code, there are no C optimization, no SIMD optimization, no > > multithreading, whereas the other codecs (x265,VP9,x264,WebP,...) have > them > > and are highly optimized, so time/speed comparison will not be fair... > > Optimization at this stage of development is misplaced. You should > have a good idea of the complexity bounds-- this is what other > engineers care about-- but so long as you can demonstrate that your > approach does something unique and useful in a way that draws > interest, that's what you need. > > > Then there are innovations in the NHW codec: like a new fast wavelet > > transform, a multistage residual coding, 3 new entropy coding schemes and > > other things like for example interesting pre- and post- processing > based on > > a laplacian kernel, a feedback correction,etc... > > All these things have been done before... how are your approaches > unique? What references do your versions draw from? Build on? One > reason to be familiar with (and use the language) of the state of the > art is to provide a shared context and terminology in which others can > understand what you're doing. > > > Monty told me :"If you don't have access to web space you can use for > > documenting and advertising the project, we can certainly offer that." > > Absolutely. > > > Are you interested in documentation of the innovations of the NHW codec? > As > > I am still very busy (but this will change), do some of you would like to > > make these demonstrations? > > > > So to finish, I think it's a great deal that Xiph.org proposes!!!, if you > > want more of this collaboration, want to help in the development, > > documentation, demonstration of the NHW Project, do not hesitate to show > up > > on the forum. > > > > Many thanks again to Xiph!, hope this will materialize in the next > months. > > Good wishes to you too! > > Cheers, > Monty > > > > > Cheers, > > Raphael > > > > _______________________________________________ > > theora mailing list > > theora at xiph.org > > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/theora > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20170909/6ef181c8/attachment.html>