Le 16/10/2024 à 15:54, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
3rd implemantation :)
you might ask why i implement this 4?! times
Heres why: (tests done with 4 rawlsb bits, 16bit per sample input)
I tested on my side also including the speed as the goal is to avoid the
speed cost of the LSB, with 6K content from scanner (analog input, last
bits are more or less random).
Speed Compr
0,037x 0,471 No patch
0,051x 0,491 bitfield
0,046x 0,489 rangecoder
the 25% gain in the speed is clearly visible (actually it 27% in my
tests) with the bitfield version of storing LSB, but it is a lot less
visible with the rangecoder version (the one from today):
There is a small 0.5% gain in size at the cost of 9% of speed, it is not
worth it IMO.
I prefer by far your first version (really storing LSB as raw), it is
fast as expected (25% less time) and adding the range coder creates
something not really interesting (20% less time "only" for so little
gain in size compared to 25%)
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
