Le 16/10/2024 à 21:51, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
did you try qtable 1 ? strangely it performed better for the file i used
compression wise
Updated with latest code (in practice, no change in previous values):
0,037x 0,471 No patch
0,051x 0,491 bitfield
0,046x 0,489 rangecoder
0,046x 0,486 rangecoder qtable=1
qtable=1 helps but still not enough for being interesting compared to
the bitfield version.
also i cleaned the code up a bit and reposted, some of the code was
not exactly optimized
here the old "bitfield"
real 0m5.545s
real 0m5.655s
real 0m5.643s
vs. just now posted:
real 0m5.407s
real 0m5.393s
real 0m5.404s
Even more interesting to keep the bitfield version rather than the range
coder!
FYI I test on 2 different sets of 2 seconds of real content, on SSD, 1
min of encoding each so result is stable, unfortunately I don't have
more content but I try to have more.
_______________________________________________
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".
