Raphael Canut
2017-Sep-04 16:18 UTC
[theora] NHW Project - fast discrete wavelet transform
Hello, I forgot in my last reply that my DWT implementation can be speed up, for example I'm doing for now: for (;_X1<_E_;_X1++,_RES+=2) //dilatation { _RES[0]=_X1[0]<<3; _RES[1]=(_X1[1]+_X1[0])<<2; } then for (;_X2<_E_;_X2++,_RES+=2) //details { _RES[0]-=(_X2[1]+_X2[0])<<1; _RES[1]+=6*_X2[1]-_X2[2]-_X2[0]; } whereas I can do in one faster step: for (;_X1<_E_;_X1++, _X2++,_RES+=2) { _RES[0]=_X1[0]<<3 - (_X2[1]+_X2[0])<<1; _RES[1]=(_X1[1]+_X1[0])<<2 + 6*_X2[1]-_X2[2]-_X2[0]; } In these conditions, my implementation seems as fast as the lifting scheme, they are doing exactly the same things in two different ways, but similar speed ways. So I think we can keep my DWT implementation in the NHW codec!!! I have heard Monty that I must do (interesting) technology demonstrations as part of the NHW Project story, but I don't know what to start, and I also lack the graphical design capabilities... Monty, a second answer would be very welcome?! Many thanks! Cheers, Raphael 2017-09-01 18:12 GMT+02:00 Raphael Canut <nhwcodec at gmail.com>:> 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/20170904/18e0125b/attachment.html>