Kostya's Boring Codec World

Last year I’ve said some harsh words about some Danish påskmust. Just in case I was wrong I decided to recheck it and bought another bottle. Here are the pictures:

In case you don’t see the list of ingredients it contains:

• carbonated water;
• elderberry juice;
• blackcurrant juice;
• sugar;
• grape juice;
• malt extract;
• spices;
• caramel colour;
• hops;
• citric acid.

And it tastes like POSIX julmust from AIX brewery would taste—it has right ingredients but also lots of things normally not found in julmust and the taste is weird in result. Only people with perverted taste like Danes (remember, one of them invented C++ and is not ashamed of it) or lu_zero(whom I blame for his tastes quite often) would like it.

Last week I’ve been attending a fifth Libav coding sprint in Pelh?imov. Here’s a report from the host of the current sprint (she was amazing, many thanks). It was fun indeed (some fun provided by Lufthansa canceling my flight because of strike).

It’s the third sprint I attended and there’s a pattern in them. Even if they are called coding sprints there’s not so much coding going there, it’s more discussing various stuff and food than actual coding (though Anton spends a lot of time fixing some decoder usually). As I’m no longer a Libav developer, I simply hang around and try to provide enough trolling and proper drinks, sometimes even sharing a bit of knowledge if anybody wants to listen.

Another recurring theme is AVScale, a saner replacement for libswscale. It gets discussed during the sprints (since Summer 2014) but nothing substantial gets done. The only things we got so far are my proof of concept implementation (I’ll present it later in my post about NAScale, it’s the same thing) and something hacked by 1-2 Italians under influence of alcohol in a couple of hours (with great comments like //luzero doesn't remember this) that has Libav integration but no functionality (my code is complete opposite of that — standalone and doing some useful functions). Well, just wait for new posts about this, they’ll appear eventually.

In general I attend sprints just to see people and new places and have some fun. Among the places where sprints took place — Pelh?imov, Stockholm and Turin — I’d say Stockholm was the best so far as it is the easiest to reach and has the best food to my taste (plus thanks to SouthPole AB hosting more people than at any other sprint). I should attend a sprint again some time.

P.S. I still blame lu_zero for not writing anything about it yet.

I like a good read with analysis of random stuff. The problem is that the planned series of posts on parallels between social organisations and software development are not written yet.

The first post would be dedicated to the idea supplanted by bureaucracy. This happens when somebody has a good idea like “let’s create X foundation to promote good thing Y” and with time it turns into monopoly that dictates the rules to everybody else in that area. A special attention would be paid to the ways such organisations maintain “democratic” façade while making all decisions in private — like with introducing many almost useless contributors into voters and convincing them to vote in the way organisers want. An addendum about how such non-profit organisations get their incredible amount of money would be good too. And if you’re still in need of an example — think about any sports organisation like IOC or FIFA.

The second post would be about cultists — not people adhering to some religion but rather people blindly following something and not even thinking that other people might have other views and needs. For example, iUsers or those who program in Oberon dialects (that seems to include Go despite it being not a direct descendant). The main problem with them is that those cultists usually force their fetish as the only proper solution and the main answer to “but I want to do that” is “it’s not needed and I’ve never did it myself”.

The third post would be about a common tactic switching from peculiar details when advertising stuff to blanket statements when defending from criticism (or vice versa). Among other things it’s very common for Oberon and systemd advocates in a fashion like “Feature X? We have it right in Y. Y sucks? Well, it’s just a single dialect/module, the whole system is wonderful, stop attacking it.” It would be painful but giving parallels between this and terrorists/peaceful Islam would be proper too.

And of course I blame lu_zero for not writing this.

Even if I’m no longer Libav or FFmpeg developer I still look at both projects’ development mailing lists (on FFmpeg’s one mostly in faint hope that Peter Ross submits anything awesome again).

So one day I see this message. The “former” leader calls a large share of commits they get “enemy merges” (and it cannot be humorous, it’s not mean enough to be Austrian humor). Well, nice attitude you have there. And you know what? This might be a semi-official position there.

I was present at FFmpeg-Libav discussion at VDD (since I was not noticed by Jean-Baptiste I remained while other outsiders were kicked out — here’s the recording of public part). There I even managed to ask a single question — what’s really changed since Michael’s resignation. FFmpeg people failed to answer that. Beside not making merges anymore Michael still announces and makes releases and does whatever changes he likes without reviews; he’s still a de facto leader in my opinion. I’m yet to see FFmpeg having defined rules stating something different (even Libav has something). Another fun fact from that meeting was some FFmpeg people openly stating they hate Libav merely because it exists.

Again, I don’t have to care about FFmpeg community but working at Libav in such conditions is no fun either (and it’s no fun for many other reasons many of which sadly have something to do with FFmpeg).

So I’d rather follow the advice from the great philosopher Eric Theodor Cartman — “screw you guys, I’m going home”. Developing NihAV at slow pace (i.e. when I feel like doing it) in a neutral one-developer atmosphere is much better.

… When I was a young piglet I liked to read the rather famous paper by Bell, Cleary and Witten discussing general data compression and PPM. The best phrase there was that the progress in data compression is mostly defined by larger amounts of RAM available. I still believe those words to be true and below I present my thoughts on current state of data compression. Probably it’s trivial, well-known, obvious or wrong to anybody knowing a bit about data compression but well, it’s my blog and my discarded thoughts dumpster.

General data compression

Let’s start from the very end — entropy coding. There are two approaches: coding into integer amount of bits or coding as close to Shannon’s entropy limit as possible. For both we have been having optimal coding methods for about half a century (Huffman coding — 1952, arithmetic coding — mid-1970s). You cannot improve compression ratio here, so the following schemes are mostly tradeoffs sacrificing a bit of compression for speed gains (especially in form of (pseudo-)arithmetic coders operating only on binary). The only outstanding thing is so-called Asymmetric Numeral Systems but I suspect they are isomorphic to traditional entropy coders.

Now about let’s look at what feeds data to entropy coders. There are two main approaches (often combined): context modeling (probably the real foundation for current highest compression methods — PPM — was proposed in mid-1980s) and LZ77 (guess the year yourselves). Are there improvements in this area? Yes! The principle is simple — the better you can predict input the better you can code it. So if you combine different methods to better handle your data you can get some gains.

And yet the main compression gain here lies in proper preprocessing. From table or executable code preprocessing (table data usually differs only a bit between entries and for executables you can get some gains if you replace jump/call addresses with absolute values) to Burrows–Wheeler transform plus move-to-front plus RLE if needed etc.

Audio compression

You have four main targets here: general lossy compression, speech compression, lossless fast compression and lossless crazy compression.

General lossy compression follows the scheme established in 1990s or earlier: transform to frequency domain, grouping frequencies and coding frequency bands. Most of the methods are quite old and progress is defined mostly by how much RAM and CPU users are willing to sacrifice on it. For example, Celt (main part of Opus; the other part, SILK, is an ordinary speech codec) is not that much different in design from G.722.1 from late 1990s.

Speech coding follows canons from 1980s too — performing LPC, coding filter coefficients and other information enhancing signal reconstruction (pulse position, pitch tilt etc.).

Lossless fast compression (aka for normal usage) follows the suit too — you have LPC or some adaptive filters used for prediction plus residue coding (usually with Golomb/Rice codes from 1960s-1970s, BTW the original Golomb paper is AWESOME, they don’t write papers like that nowadays).

Lossless crazy compression (aka spend hours compressing it and as much for decompressing) employ the same suit but they have longer filters and usually even several filters of different size applied each after another plus better residue coding schemes.

Image compression

Here you have more variety of coding methods but most of them are very old (just look when Haar wavelet was proposed). Especially funny is that JPEG is still holding strong despite being more than twenty years old. I still remember so-called fourth generation image compression (separating image into region borders and textures to fill them and coding those), it didn’t lift off yet despite being introduced in late 1980s or so.

The only interesting development happens in lossless image compression but neither 2-D LZ77 (WebP) nor context modeling (FLIF) are particularly new ideas.

Video compression

Modern codecs are all so similar and they are usually ripoffs of H.26x (there are two exceptions — Thor, which is not a ripoff just because it was designed with openly acknowledging that some parts are taken from H.265, and Daala, which is more original and it’s discussed below).

So nowadays you have a very limited subset of ideas that were present in video codecs from 1990s — it’s boring macroblocks (now with quadtree partitioning instead of fixed size), motion compensation (now you have more reference frames to choose from though) and binary entropy coder (except for Thor, it went the way of RealVideo 3/4 with context-adaptive VLCs). Even the trend of adding special coding tools for special content doesn’t look that original (if you remember countless screen codecs and MPEG-4 Audio, *barf*).

The only exception for now is Daala that uses more original ideas but I fear it will end the same boring codec because it is not crazy enough to make a breakthrough. I believe it should do more crazy preprocessing at least and maybe better modeling, e.g. taking more than nearest neighbours into account (maybe even use something PPM-like for element coding and not just probabilities mixing). Look at JBIG for inspiration maybe 😉

Conclusions

Don’t expect miracles in data compression to happen anytime soon but couple of percent improvements for specialised fields at least in a decade is possible and even expected.

Since I’ve been asked the same questions over and over again I’ve decided to make a short (for now) FAQ page.

• How many years does it take to get a citizenship in Germany? 7-8 years.
• How long have you been living in Germany? Since Spring 2010, do the math yourself.
• So you’ll get your German citizenship in a couple of years, right? Maybe. It’s the same kind of maybe as in ‘Berlin-Brandenburg airport will be open in a couple of years.’ And it does not depend on me much.
• Can you help me with ProRes issue … I can but I have no desire nor obligations. All Trocadero I got writing an encoder is gone long time ago and I don’t participate in projects that offer any ProRes support, inquire there.
• Can you look at this codec … I can but no promises — I rarely have a desire to do anything these days.
• Is NihAV real? More or less, it still lacks a lot of design and code but there are some bits implemented already. Design is described in this blog when it appears, code is developed as who-cares-source.
• Why do you blame lu_zero? Oh, there are so many reasons for that and new ones keep appearing almost every day. Mostly it’s for the things he was supposed to do but still hasn’t done (and unlikely to do in foreseeable future): AVScale design and implementation, writing blog posts on certain topics (often I end writing them, which is yet another reason to blame him), not doing much about ASF or RealMedia demuxers and related delayed work, for personal stuff (like preventing me trying Torino trams and underground), for missing technical stuff in a wiki. Oh, and for being at least two different persons. There’s more that I can’t remember right now.
• When will you visit Pelh?imov? Dunno, maybe when I have more than three free days.

From my experience a lot of codecs have some wrong things in them and those things are usually introduced during codec creation. As for containers, I’ve expressed my opinion before.

It is very bad when some codec is being developed and then suddenly it’s declared released. You’re left with a pile of code that has somehow evolved into current shape and probably even the author has no idea how it works. Two examples — Snow and Speex. The first one is wavelet-based codec that performed quite well back in DiVX 3/4 days, the other one is a speech codec that also gained some popularity and was even included as one of Flash audio codecs. So the codecs by themselves should not be that bad but there’s only one implementation and no specification. There were several attempts to make Snow developer write a specification for it (for money!) but he always refused. FFV1 is faring somewhat better since it has some rudimentary specification and hopefully standardisation efforts will bring us independent implementations and full specification (yes, I’m an idiot optimist). What would be a proper way to design a codec in my opinion? Create test version, play with it till you achieve good result or release a known beta, write specification, throw away old code and reimplement version 1 from scratch. Repeat for version 2 etc.

I think I’ve complained before that this situation is very common with proprietary codecs too. They have inhouse encoder and decoder implementation with encoder bugs compensated in the decoder. Stupid motion compensation in RealVideo 4 is one of those “features”. Or pre-RTM WMV9 with its block pattern coding though it’s supposed to be beta anyway.

There is even worse case — when codec author decides to embed all development history into decoder maintaining backward compatibility. The worst offender is Monkey Audio with its subtle bitstream changes at every version and having two dozen versions. Another “good” example is HEVC with its ever-changing bitstream format. Different major versions of reference software introduce serious bitstream changes, like HM8 -> HM10 transition remapped all NAL IDs. IIRC superseded version of ITU H.265 was for 4:2:0 subsampling only. Honestly, I shan’t cry if this codec dies because of idiotic licensing terms (and maybe it should really be contained only in FLV). Speaking of HEVC idiocies, VP9 got new features in new profiles including 4:4:0 subsampling. In my opinion one should kill this creeping featurism especially if you don’t have proper profiling/versioning system and even them introduce new features sparingly.

At least there’s still hope for Daala to be developed properly.

Previously I feared there won’t be any H.265 clones beside VP<git-experimental> codec but luckily I was proved wrong.

There’s the second announcement of Really?Networks RMHD, intended for China (RealMedia was popular there after all). Either it’s their completely new codec (NGV) that has finally buffered 100% based on some original ideas or it’s H.265 ripoff. I’d bet on the latter.

Second, I’ve finally read a book describing upcoming AVS2 (again, intended for China and being a Chinese standard). Well, if the first paragraph describing it has such abbreviations as CU, PU and TU you may be sure it’s an original codec that has nothing to do with H.265. Coding concepts like variable block transform, splitting motion compensating block unevenly and having 34 intra prediction modes — those concepts are completely original and are not used anywhere else for sure. Of course there’s some Chinese logic involved in some decisions and thus codec has such gems ripped off HEVC like coding motion vectors in integer precision instead of quarterpel if they exceed certain limit or coding coefficients in zigzags of 4×4 blocks or having special treating for 64×64 blocks (this block is downscaled first and then transformed with conventional 32×32 transform — and they call it Logical Transform BTW) or special motion vector prediction mode for F-frames.

But that’s not all — they’ve introduced special “scene coding”. It relies on G-frames or GB-frames that contain scene background and it may be not displayed (who said VPx?!), and S-frames contain foreground motion. Though I’m pretty sure one can emulate it using H.265 features too, maybe longrefs plus no_display flag. I’m also pretty sure that if HEVC lacks some coding approach for now it will be added soon as a special extension (at least what I’ve read in screen coding extension looked completely logical — like a saddle as one of car seats).

Now I can be sure at last that codec future is looking good.

UPD: And there’s Cisco Thor now as well (simplified HEVC with VLC instead of CABAC). It does two things simultaneously — expands H.265 ripoffs family and borrows more from H.264. Now the only thing missing is Sorenson SVQ5 (or Double Spark or whatever name they want to give it).

I see too much bullshit about Greece in Internet these days, so much of it that I could not refrain from writing this post.

First of all, I come from a country with even worse economical situation (fun fact — the former Ukrainian ostrich supportedpresident complained how hard it’s to repay debts on his visit to Greece during the first Greek debt crisis). Unlike Greece most of people got no money from government, companies had large tax burden (in the latter years the government decided to press companies to pay taxes in advance and in amount decided by the tax inspection, tax returns working only for selected companies), lots of debts that went to no good purpose…

But enough about similarities between countries (certain Italians are not happy about similarities between Ukraine and Italy either), let’s get to the bullshit statements.

It’s not their fault. Of course it is, they had to forge their financial statistics under gunpoint in order to join and remain in Eurozone. Of course they share blame with Eurobureaucracy that wanted to extend EU even with a Greece and was willing to overlook their faults in order to keep it. Yet active part had been done by Greek government — it’s easy to buy voters with borrowed money that somebody else has to return in the future (in other words — not our problem). Another point of tension is Schengen area membership: because of good border control they have a lot of illegal immigrants and that’s what EU needs, hopefully when some neighbouring lands will connect Greece to the rest of Schengen area it will bring joy to everyone, especially to the UK.

The whole world is in debt to Greece for their achievements in culture and science. First of all, that sounds like typical copyright. “My grandfather once wrote a song that was played on a radio, I deserve not to work ever in my life.” (some Slashdot comment as I remember it from a decade ago or so). Second, most of the current countries have nothing to do with the nations that were on that territory a thousand or two thousand years ago. Look at Arab Republic Egypt — there was nothing Arabic in the people who built pyramids, temples and sphinxes. If you believe David Ben-Gurion’s thesis, then Palestinians are true Israeli people who lost their culture because of Arab conquests — they seem to oppose their original religion even to this day. Same story with Balkan nations and Ottoman Empire: modern Greece has nothing to do with the ancient Greece except in territory (say hello to Macedonia) and similar language. So, nice knowing you but don’t claim the old history to yourself; and while I’m grateful for those past achievements, they are not yours. I’d been living in a country that tried to exploit that (mostly in form of Soviet legacy and what colloquial “they” did for everyone), no thanks.

What do LZ77 compressors and lossless codecs have in common? They are both perform lossless compression and there are too many of them because everyone tries to invent their own. And like lossless audio codecs — quite often in their own container too.

In case you don’t know (shame on you!) LZ77 scheme parses input into pieces like <literal> <copy> <literal> ... Literal means “copy these input bytes verbatim”, copy is “we had that substring some time ago, copy N bytes from the history at offset M”.

The idea by itself is rather simple and thus it’s easy to implement some LZ77 parsing with the following coding, slap your name on it and present as some new algorithm. There are three branches of implementation goals there — fast (but somewhat decent) compression, high (but not so fast) compression and experimental research that may lead to implementations in the first two branches.

Fast compression schemes usually pack everything into bytes so no time is wasted on bit reading. Usually format is like this — if top three bits of the next byte are something, then read literal copy length, otherwise determine offset size, read it and copy string from the dictionary. Quite often there are small tweaks to make compression faster (like using hashes) or slightly better (using escape values to code long values and coding small offsets/lengths into opcode etc.). There are so many implementations like that and they still keep appearing. LZO, LZF, FastLZ, snappy, chameleon… And lots of old games used such compression for their resources (including video) too.

High compression schemes use much better compressing of the data produced by LZ77 parsing and spending more cycles on finding the best parsing of the input. It all started essentially with LZHUF when someone decided to employ Huffman codes instead of writing values in a fixed amount of bits. If you’ve never heard about LHA/LZH you need your Amiga box confiscated. This approach reached its peak with Deflate — by modern standards it’s not the best format to compress (i.e. not fast enough, does not compress high enough etc etc.) but it’s the standard available everywhere and in any form. Deflate uses custom per-block Huffman codes with their definition stored in compressed form as well so there’s hardly anything to improve there radically. And thus (patent expiration helped greatly too) another form of LZ77-based compression started to bloom — LZA (using modelling and arithmetic coding on LZ77 parsing results). Current favourite LZMA (and main RAR compression scheme) uses this approach too albeit in very sophisticated form — preprocessors to increase compression ratio on some kinds of known data, Markov models, you name it.

And here’s my rant — leave Deflate alone! It’s like JPEG of data compression — old and seemingly not very effective but it’s ubiquitous, well-supported and still has some improvement potential (like demonstrated by e.g. 7-zip and zopfli). I hate it to have as many compression schemes to support as video codecs. Deflate and LZMA are enough for now and I doubt there will be something significantly more effective appearing soon. Work on something lossy — like H.265 encoder optimisations — instead.