fre 2019-02-22 klockan 00:11 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 09:26:44PM +0000, Matthew Fearnley wrote: > > - To clear up the effects: the change from 'i=1' to 'i=0' was the only > > change that should make any difference in the output. > > The rest of the changes were to improve the speed of an inner loop, and to > > fix two bugs that happily cancelled each other out, but would have broken > > if the code were changed to emit larger blocks. These should not lead to > > changes in the blocks chosen or the final compression size. > > > > - Regarding the worse compression: let me start by stating that scoring on > > byte frequency alone will not always predict well how Deflate will work, > > since Deflate also uses pattern matching as well. > > Frequency-based block scoring will only ever be a heuristic. There may be > > scope for improving the scoring, but it would add a lot of complexity, and > > I think it would be easy to make things worse rather than better. (I found > > this in my brief experiments with including the frequencies from the > > previous block.) > > implementing the exact scoring by using Deflate itself would allow us to > understand how much there is between the heuristic and what is achievable. > If there is a gap that is significant then it may be interresting to > look at improving the heuristic if the gap is small than the whole > heuristic improvment path can be discarded. > The obvious improvment for the heuristic would be to move to higher > order entropy estimation. ATM IIUC this uses a 0th order. 1st order could > be tried or any fast compression algorithm could also be used to estimate > entropy.
We tried a sliding window order-0 model, which did worse. An order-1 model might be useful, but would need quite a bit of context for it to be meaningful > It also would be interresting to see how a higher order heuristic or > some simple fast LZ like compressor would perform with the previous block. > That is if the issue you saw with the previous block inclusion was because > of the very simplistic entropy estimation. zlib at level 1 maybe? You could also have a multi-pass thing where it first does a coarse pass then tries to jiggle MVs and greedily accept any change that results in smaller output. /Tomas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
