Hi, I guess this is a good time to start putting together a wish list for a video codec. I see that for audio the compression is around 10X for reasonable quality. I am sure this will start its own thread of conversation. For video you can do 40X fairly easily and the big task is to go to 80X or 100X with reasonable picture quality, say, a peak luma SNR of more than 30 dB. Uncompressed Professional Quality video (called "D1" see below), like the one at TV stations before broadcast, is 216 Mbps. Smaller resolutions have less bps of course. One of the many tasks is going to be to work around the existing patents but if the audio guys can do it, the video guys should be able to as well. Not everything has been discovered or patented for video compression. I suggest to focus on "SIF", quarter-screen video (352x240 for NSTC rectangular, TV, pixels and 320x240 for square, computer, pixels). For nomenclature purposes full screen is "VGA" is 640x480p progressive and "D1" is 720x480i interlaced (some people also use "Half D1" 360x480i for some products). Computers are progressive, TV is interlaced. 30 Frames/second, or 60 fields/second yields a natural moving image that does not suffer too much from "jumpiness" during pans. Movie film is 24 fps sometimes presenting each frame three times for a net 72 fps. Experiments show good quality for SIF, 30 progressive frames/second at 512 Kbps system bitrate (Audio is 96 Kbps). There are some experiments on D1 (full) resolution at 1.5 Mbps video-only but the quality is not good. D1 resolution at 3 Mbps can look good today. Any input on desired resolutions, bitrates, color resolution (color subsampling), frame rates, etc? I will be unavailable until Monday, Sep 11th so if you send e-mail or post questions I will not be able to get back to you until Sep 11th. Excuse the apparent lack of order, I just want to start throwing ideas/concepts to the list. All can be clarified and classified in due time. RAUL LOPEZ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Chrissy and Raul wrote:> Any input on desired resolutions, bitrates, color resolution (color > subsampling), frame rates, etc?How about square pixels and arbitrary resolutions/framerates? No encoding letterbox bars, pulldown is the player's responsibility. Let's put the baggage of the analog past in the encoders/players, not in the format. -r --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Chrissy and Raul wrote:> I guess this is a good time to start putting together a wish list > for a video codec.I'm not that into video standards, but as a potential user I'd add following to the wish-list: - VBR with a "maximum" (example: 1Mbps or less -> no need for CBR ?) - plain vanilla VBR without maximum (for high-quality video) - any resolution - 16bpp, 24bpp, 32bpp. (Maybe 8bpp for cartoons ?) Don't add audio ? We already have Vorbis. Make video another Ogg stream and let audio come from Vorbis stream or wherever... Subtitles can also be a stream. Does Ogg know how to deal with syncing streams? -- best regards, Rok Papez. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Just for clarity, so that we have the correct terminology and numbers, and I'll raise some issues that I think should be considered when designing Ogg Video. Digital Broadcast Quality Video is described in CCIR601/656, which is basically the following: Active Frame Size | Frame Rate | Subsampling | Active pixels per second ---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------- NTSC: 720x480 | 1000/1001*30 | 4:2:2 | ~10.3M PAL: 720x576 | 25 | 4:2:2 | ~10.3M A 'frame' is a full image of video. In interlaced video, a frame consists of two fields, the even field and the odd field. The video signals are encoded in the YCbCr color space (Luminance + Crominance-Blue + Crominance-Red). Each of the color components Y, Cb, or Cr is called a 'subpixel'. A subpixel in CCIR601/656 has a precision of 8 bits. The subsampling of CCIR601/656 is called '4:2:2' subsampling in 'mpeg terms', and means that the crominance pixels are decimated by factor of two in the horizontal direction. The result is that color has only half resolution in the horizontal direction (360x480NTSC/360x576PAL). To be honest, this subsampling is the first step of lossy compression of a factor ((1+1+1)*8)/((1+0.5+0.5)*8)=1.5, because a 24bpp image is described with an average of 16 bits per pixel after reduction of the chrominance resolution. The number of 216Mbit mentioned here is CCIR601/656 video data including the blanking and retrace interval overhead (a CCIR601/656 video stream also contains non-active pixels, because it also contains the timing so that the video data can easily be transformed to and from the analog domain). My opinion is that, when discussing video compression, it is confusing to speak of 'compression ratios', because it is never clear whether compression ratio before or after subsampling is meant, and whether or not non-active pixels were counted in the non-compressed stream. A factor of 100 compression of the 216Mbit stream would result in a 2.16Mbit stream. However, a factor of 100 compression of the active CCIR601/656 video pixels would result in a 10.3*16/100=1.65Mbit stream. There is a 24% difference between the two numbers. I suggest using the term 'bits per pixel' to quantify the compression ratio. With that number there are no unclarities and it's easy to calculate the resulting video bit-rate given the video image resolution. 'D1 at 1.5Mbps' is approx 0.15 bits per pixel, 'D1 at 3Mbps' is approx 0.3 bits per pixel. Rough numbers: With JPEG compression, you get between 1-5 bits per pixel, jpeg is mostly used in the range of 1-2 bits per pixel. JPEG200 claims to get 4-8 better compression than JPEG, if that is true it's about the range of 0.15-1.25 bits per pixel. With MPEG compression, you can get between 0.15-1.5 bits per pixel, depending on the encoder and image quality of course (and the MPEG version, MPEG1, MPEG2, or MPEG4). When counting uncompressed video as 24 bits per pixel, this explains the claimed 100x compression of MPEG video at 0.24 bits per pixel. Below 0.15 bits per pixel is often very agressive coding for applications such as video conferencing, in which case large parts of the image are left completely unchanged (H.263/H.26L). I think if we want to compete based on compression ratio, then we should somehow get at 0.1 bits per pixel or below. A CDROM is approx 650x8=5.2Gbits, so for an hour of video you have 5200/3600=1.44Mbits/s, which would dictate a compression to below approx (1.44/10.3)=0.14 bits per pixel if there is to be any room left for audio etc. Of course it's easy to get 0.14 bits per pixel if there is no quality requirement... When comparing compression methods, image quality is often measured in PSNR (dB) or MSE (mean squared error). A compression method can be considered better if it achieves better PSNR/MSE at similar bit rates, or lower bit rates at similar PSNR/MSE. So, when introducing a video compression method with amazing bit-rates, it can be proven to have better quality than the alternatives by comparing the PSNR/MSE at various bit-rates. Of course, the effecitveness of PSNR or MSE as image quality measure is a point of discussion, so there is always still room for interpretation of the numbers (note that there are other measurement methods that attempt to give better numbers, there's even an expert group (www.crc.ca/vqeg)). Ok, then there is the issue of variable or fixed bit-rate and variable or fixed quality and encoder and buffering latency. If you have a variable bit-rate encoder for a fixed quality stream, or a fixed bit-rate encoder for a variable quality stream, then you can keep the buffers small to reduce the latency. However, if you put a maximum on the bit-rate, and don't want to accept occasionally reduced image quality of the video, then you will need buffering to even out the bit-rate on the hard-to-encode pieces of video, which of course introduces latency. When buffering is needed, the decoder must know how much to fill the buffer before starting to display to ensure that later on, during display it never has to wait for compressed data to be received during the hard-to-compress video scenes. Additionally, there may be a limitation on the buffer size that is economical in the decoder (especially in hardware, RAM=money). The MPEG standards include a scheme to control this, centered around the 'video buffer verifier (VBV)'. I think Ogg video should address this issue as well. Cheers, Jelle. Chrissy and Raul wrote:> > Hi, > > I guess this is a good time to start putting together a wish list for a > video codec. > > I see that for audio the compression is around 10X for reasonable quality. > I am sure this will start its own thread of conversation. > > For video you can do 40X fairly easily and the big task is to go to 80X or > 100X with reasonable picture quality, say, a peak luma SNR of more than 30 > dB. Uncompressed Professional Quality video (called "D1" see below), like > the one at TV stations before broadcast, is 216 Mbps. Smaller resolutions > have less bps of course. > > One of the many tasks is going to be to work around the existing patents but > if the audio guys can do it, the video guys should be able to as well. Not > everything has been discovered or patented for video compression. > > I suggest to focus on "SIF", quarter-screen video (352x240 for NSTC > rectangular, TV, pixels and 320x240 for square, computer, pixels). For > nomenclature purposes full screen is "VGA" is 640x480p progressive and "D1" > is 720x480i interlaced (some people also use "Half D1" 360x480i for some > products). Computers are progressive, TV is interlaced. 30 Frames/second, > or 60 fields/second yields a natural moving image that does not suffer too > much from "jumpiness" during pans. Movie film is 24 fps sometimes > presenting each frame three times for a net 72 fps. > > Experiments show good quality for SIF, 30 progressive frames/second at 512 > Kbps system bitrate (Audio is 96 Kbps). There are some experiments on D1 > (full) resolution at 1.5 Mbps video-only but the quality is not good. D1 > resolution at 3 Mbps can look good today. > > Any input on desired resolutions, bitrates, color resolution (color > subsampling), frame rates, etc? > > I will be unavailable until Monday, Sep 11th so if you send e-mail or post > questions I will not be able to get back to you until Sep 11th. > > Excuse the apparent lack of order, I just want to start throwing > ideas/concepts to the list. All can be clarified and classified in due > time. > > RAUL LOPEZ > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > --- >8 ---- > List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ > Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ > To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' > containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. > Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Hi, it is great to be back. Let me answer inline below:>From: Ralph Giles <giles@snow.ashlu.bc.ca> >Reply-To: vorbis@xiph.org >To: vorbis@xiph.org >Subject: Re: [vorbis] Video codec >Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:57:25 -0700 (PDT) > >On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Sean Wieland wrote: > > > Well, I was thinking more along the lines of reasonable storage > > considerations. At least 5GB per DVD is a bit harsh. Whereas .5GB per > > OGG-Video means plenty of room on one of those new 80GB hard drives for > > a good-sized movie collection in addition to a good-sized CD collection, > > all of the regular apps, games, etc. > >Alright, I see what you mean. I just wanted to be clear that DVD-video is >already lossily compressed; what you were asking for was not "Oh look, I >can fit my CD collection in 1/10th the space using Vorbis" but "Oh look, I >can fit my mp3 collection in 1/10th the space using Vorbis *and* >downsampling to 11kHz mono". > > > I'm talking about 352x240 resolution VHS-quality streaming video at > > about 100kbps. > > I agree that DVD level resolution and quality without broadband would be > > extremely difficult (as in near impossible). Although DVD resolution > > and quality at about 1Mbps for archive on CD would be nice. > >I still think this is overly optimistic. None of the current codecs come >close to VHS quality at 100kbps. But we'll see. ;-)Lets go step by step downwards in bitrate. I agree that for Internet media streaming, we have to concentrate on SIF (quarter-screen) resolution. My reason is that DSL and other broadband connections will be around 384 Kbps for a while. For wireless devices 3G is going to start at 348 Kbps. If you look at how formats like Windows Media, RealVideo and QuickTime split audio and video, the audio part becomes more and more important percentagewise as you increase compression. At 512 Kbps, RealVideo allocates 96 Kbps to audio in most cases, at 384 Kbps, 64 Kbps is more common for audio. WindowsMedia and QuickTime can be easily setup for those and other mixes. You can check: http://www.izahi.com/internet_media for examples of two Audio/Video clips encoded at 384 and 512 Kbps using several free encoders. Please also notice the "free-ness" of this comparison, encoders that cost something can improve quality as QuickTime/Sorenson claim in their websites. Notice also with whatever connection that you have how long the clip takes to start, if it plays smoothly (or with internet delays/clogging/etc), if it downloads or streams. All of the clips are files on a server with NO special serving software, the client decides how to play the clip. Of course, please look at the quality. RealVideo and Windows Media start dropping frames below 384 Kbps for high-motion video like sports. Complete media (audio/video) delivery at 384 Kbps, SIF (320x240, since we "already agreed" on square pixels) resolution and 30 frames per second(fps), is possible today with average-to-low picture quality for most video that we want to see (I suggest channel surfing on TV during a typical viewing day to check action vs. talking heads vs. soft pictures vs. news). One very important step in the video codec definition is what resolution, frame rate and bitrates are acceptable/practical. For now, I have not seen evidence of 128 Kbps media delivery at SIF resolution and I think QSIF (160x120) resolution is only good for video phones or media including one single talking head. RAUL LOPEZ> > -r > > >--- >8 ---- >List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ >Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ >To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' >containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. >Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered._________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
>From: Jelle Foks <jelle-foks@list.dedris.nl> > >Chrissy and Raul wrote: > >(ok, I cut a lot of your mail, but I don't think it's too much out of >context now). > > > One very important step in the video codec definition is what >resolution, > > frame rate and bitrates are acceptable/practical. > >Totally agreed. Let's start making list and try to agree upon it?I propose for Ogg internet media: Frame Rates: - 15 fps (half 30 fps) - 24 fps (Film native rate. I heard that in Europe 24 fps movie DVDs are presented at 25fps which make them end sooner, good, more time for the family, is this true?) - 30 fps Bitrates (based on actual experiments with video compression): SIF (320x240 resolution) - 512 Kbps including 96 Kbps audio - 384 Kbps including 64 Kbps audio - 256 Kbps including 56 Kbps audio QSIF (160x120 resolution) TBA Some numbers available next week. I am using three scenes for the video compression experiments: hockey, mongolian rock concert, mongolian flag and plaza.> > > For now, I have not seen evidence of 128 Kbps media delivery at SIF > > resolution and I think QSIF (160x120) resolution is only good for video > > phones or media including one single talking head. > >Just a stir in the pot: How about moving parts of web sites competition >to macromedia flash?Uh? RAUL LOPEZ> >Jelle. > >--- >8 ---- >List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ >Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ >To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' >containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. >Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered._________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
MPEG-2, at moderate (20:1 [10 Mbps, CBR, 4:2:0] ) to high compression ratios (40:1 [5 Mbps, CBR, 4:2:0] ), creates several kinds of artifacts. The most noticeable ones are three: 1) Blocking noise (blocks that are 8 or 16 pixels square) 2) "Mosquito" noise (irregular dots around sharp edges, like letters or numbers) 2) Low-level DCT noise, crawling dots on flat surfaces The first is of spatial nature, still/individual images have it. The second is spatial and temporal (still and moving images have it). The third can only be detected with moving images as flat surfaces move. Only with Hockey or Basketball you get blocking noise at 10 Mbps, and only sometimes. The three are visible at 5 Mbps. This is assuming good IBP coding. Color changes and blurring (unless very obvious) are harder to detect without side-by-side comparisons. RAUL LOPEZ>From: Tom Bishop <Tom@Truly.nu> > > > > > the MPEG effects were not > > > that noticable on a 27" tube, but when played on a 43" projection >system > > > suffers very noticably. > > > > Which the best noticable degradation: Ringing? Blocking? Blur? Skewed > > areas? In the colors or in the luminance? I'm sorry, I haven't seen the > > tivo in Europe yet. > >I have replayTV.. I would say "Blocking" ..though I do not have that >much understanding of terminology, there are prominent blocks that appear >during action.. still shots look reasonable. > >Regards, >Tom > > >--- >8 ---- >List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ >Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ >To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' >containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. >Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered._________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Raul wrote:> SIF (320x240 resolution) > - 512 Kbps including 96 Kbps audio > - 384 Kbps including 64 Kbps audio > - 256 Kbps including 56 Kbps audioI think the video & audio bitrates should be optionally independant. There will be instances where someone wants high quality audio and is not so bothered with the video quality and vice versa. My 1 cent. Ross. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
These mailings are getting very detailed, this is good. Answers below:>From: Ralph Giles <giles@snow.ashlu.bc.ca> > >On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Chrissy and Raul wrote: > > > >Totally agreed. Let's start making list and try to agree upon it? > >I assume these are for purposes of comparison and guidelines for common >source types, rather than requirements. I was hoping we also "already >agree" to allow arb. frame size and rate. One of my pet peeves with the >DVD spec is the way they include the letterbox mask in the frame they >compress, just to keep things within the spec'd size and aspect ratio.When we do arbitrary frame sizes that are not exact multiples of the original scanning rate (of camera CCD/CMOS sensor, of film scanner or of original A/D converter) there is a softening of the picture that happens due to the arbitrary subsampling. Using filters to reduce say 720 to 640 pixels causes fine lines to disappear, create weird patters and edges to be softened. Companies like Faroudja, Snell and Wilcox and now Teranex, go through incredible pains to scale up to large sizes and the pictures are still softened because you are making pixels out of nothing. When you are scaling down you face similar problems. I want to stay away from softening the picture by using exact SUB-multiples of the original scanning. Even hardware manufacturers stick to multiples: for example the new Compaq portable PocketPC has a 320x240 display. The softening of adapting a picture to a certain display with different native resolution can create maddening artifacts.> > > Frame Rates: > > > > - 15 fps (half 30 fps) > > - 24 fps (Film native rate. I heard that in Europe 24 fps movie DVDs >are > > presented at 25fps which make them end sooner, good, more time for the > > family, is this true?) > > - 30 fps > >Likewise, we're not worrying that 30 fps isn't really 30 fps in NTSC >video?The difference is small enough to not be a problem.> >I'd also suggest 16 fps for early cinema, and 60 for action sequences >(ask someone who plays first person shooters). Rates of 8 and 12 fps are >sometimes used for animation.60 fps is definitely good, the hardware requirements are huge, though.> > > SIF (320x240 resolution) > > [...] > > QSIF (160x120 resolution) > >We also need other frame sizes for film. Common aspect ratios are: > >1.33:1 (4x3) >1.78:1 (16x9) >1.85:1 (US standard for 'just ordinary movies') >2.35:1 ("cinemascope") > >Here are some examples based on multiples of 240, by way of example: > >vert. x1.33 x1.78 x1.85 x2.35 >240 320 426 444 564 >480 640 854 888 1128 >720 960 1280 1332 1692 >960 1280 1706 1776 2256 > >Note that block-oriented codecs like mpeg want the sizes to be multiples >of 8, 16, or 32, of which every few of these qualify. For a given aspect >ratio one can usually find something though. For example, the "Lord of the >Rings" trailer (quicktime) is available in 240x104, 320x136, 480x204, and >640x272. All divisible by 8 and all but the smallest at 2.3529:1. > >As Monty pointed out, the proposed wavelet codec doesn't care about >blocks. I don't know anything about the proposed non-power-of-2 transform >though. Are things like small prime factors important like with the fft?One issue with Wavelets is that they require access to larger areas at the same time than 8x8 DCTs, isn't that true?> >The US HDTV standard also suggests some standard frames: > >640x480 (4x3) >1280x720 (16x9) >1920x1080 (16x9) > >All but the largest support 24,30, and 60 fps (actually 60/1.001). > >IMO we should be planning to target content production and a replacement >for DVD-video as well as web streaming. That means large formats. The >acknowledged digital-equivalent vertical resolution of 35mm film is 4k >lines (these days; that's about equivalent to the 70mm epics of 25+ years >ago). Most special effects work is done at 2k lines and some folks claim >to see the difference. That's not to say you always get that, of course: >it depends on film stock, exposure, lens quality, development, etc. At >some point, you're just resolving the grain. OTOH, rumour says the new >"digital film" camera being used to shoot the next "Star Wars" are only 1k >lines (960, I think) and they're still having to be more careful with set >painting because they give sharper detail than film.Viewing any image at the right distance with the right contrast and color can give you the impression of reality. If you see the interlacing lines in your TV step back until you don't see them, that is a good place to watch. The eyes does wonders integrating separate lines, it is only a matter of how close you want to be to the screen, how much it becomes part of your perceived surroundings.> >See this recent slashdot article for further comments: > >http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/11/1710204 > > >Speaking of square pixels, the advantage is obvious to most software >people, but we'll need to be ready to defend this one. One thing I didn't >realize is that effectively *all* 35mm film work uses an anamorphic >(cylindrical) lens to squeeze the director's chosen aspect ratio onto a >standard-sized area of film. (The process is reversed in projection.) So >people are used to this, and from the point of view of hardware >implementations, it makes a lot of sense to have a fixed frame-size plus >(even arbitrary) horizontal scaling.Here I push for *optically* correcting anamorphically encoded digital images. There is also Super35, like Titanic, that shoot everything in the original 4:3 aspect ratio and then cut top and bottom.> > > > I am using three scenes for the video compression experiments: hockey, > > mongolian rock concert, mongolian flag and plaza. > >Do you own the copyright on these clips? Would you be willing to make them >available in uncompressed form (on the net, or mail someone a cd) so we >can make a start on a test suite?My company owns the mongolian rock concert and the mongolian flag and plaza. We can get an easy release. We need to shoot hockey and basketball at somebody's neighborhood and get releases from the neighborhood players. RAUL LOPEZ> >Cheers, > -ralph > >-- >giles@ashlu.bc.ca > > > >--- >8 ---- >List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ >Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ >To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' >containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. >Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered._________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Answers below...>From: Dan Barlow <danbarlow@radix.net> >...> >First of all, I agree with what's been discussed so far. My >application would be compiling raytraced animations to a compressed >distribution format and I would like to be able to offer everything >from very small (low quality OK) previews on one end to fullscreen >1024*768 on the other. > >My real reason for posting is that a friend of mine is a 16mm >film hobbyist and has some very nice footage and some really >ugly footage which might make appropriate best/worst case test >material. I will approach him for permission to post it, but >I need to know what format would be most helpful: separate TIFF >frames, separate JPEG, MJPEG, ? We can also shoot and digitize >some NTSC footage.I can take in immediately separate .tga, .ppm, .yuv (raw) and single-file .yuv. Does anybody have a MJPEG to .yuv or .ppm converter? We did some experiments comparing 16mm vs. DV vs. 35mm vs. 35mm slides vs. HDTV (1080i) amazing differences and qualities... RAUL LOPEZ>Thanks! >-Dan Barlow > > >--- >8 ---- >List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ >Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ >To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' >containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. >Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered._________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.