Lair Of The Multimedia Guru

The PCA/KLT is often said to be the optimal linear transform for video coding while the DCT is a similar, faster and simpler transform
This isnt really true, the KLT is not that optimal at all for video coding, what the KLT is, is that it is the optimal orthogonal transform for compacting the energy of a vector into its first n components, what might be better is a transform, preferably (near) orthogonal which compacts the energy into few components, not neccessarily the first few!
For example, if we consider 1D 8 component vectors, lets assume our data set is entirely made of piecewice constants then the following basis functions would allow us to exactly store these with 1+n basis functions where n is the number of discontinuities, and please note this here is just an example where the KLT isnt that optimal, 1-D piecewise constants are probably not a ideal model for images …

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ok this is quite a non orthogonal set of basis functions which has its problems too, a less compact and orthogonal (if the basis functions are normalized, which for sake of readability hasnt been done) but still better then KLT transform would be based upon the following basis functions:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1-1-1-1-1
1 1-1-1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1-1-1
1-1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1-1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1-1 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 1-1

here a piecewise constant with 1 discontinuity can be represented by 2-4 basis functions where the KLT case below will need all 8 for an exact representation

 0.290596  0.341669  0.377247  0.395479  0.395472  0.377227  0.341853  0.290749  
-0.490579 -0.416017 -0.277788 -0.097204  0.097447  0.277903  0.415566  0.490129      
 0.473927  0.255266 -0.138718 -0.437652 -0.436948 -0.137245  0.255345  0.473804       
-0.415204  0.097424  0.490934  0.276661 -0.277947 -0.490521 -0.097391  0.416181       
-0.382979  0.320320  0.364628 -0.343399 -0.342868  0.364783  0.320177 -0.383024       
-0.278541  0.491575 -0.099199 -0.414873  0.416580  0.096333 -0.489054  0.277157        
-0.210508  0.464503 -0.455644  0.190764  0.181391 -0.451288  0.463825 -0.210293        
-0.096505  0.274820 -0.412134  0.489524 -0.491862  0.418348 -0.280951  0.098971

this has been generated by (the hopefully not buggy) pca.c/pca.h

Another way to see the sub-optimality of the KLT is to consider the last (high frquency) basis functions, in many images and videos they are simply not used, if they would be replaced by commonly occuring patterns which without them would need many basis functions to be accurately represented then the compression-rate could be improved, the resultig transform would be non orthogonal though …

Whats a scantable? A thing that tells you where to put the coefficients which you got from vlc/rle decoding, so for example with the famous zigzag table

    0,   1,  8, 16,  9,  2,  3, 10,
    17, 24, 32, 25, 18, 11,  4,  5,
    12, 19, 26, 33, 40, 48, 41, 34,
    27, 20, 13,  6,  7, 14, 21, 28,
    35, 42, 49, 56, 57, 50, 43, 36,
    29, 22, 15, 23, 30, 37, 44, 51,
    58, 59, 52, 45, 38, 31, 39, 46,
    53, 60, 61, 54, 47, 55, 62, 63

the first Coefficient would be written at position 0, the second one at 1, third at 8 and so on. As the destination array is a 8×8 matrix here this produces a nice zigzag from the top left corner to the bottom right corner, ordering the dct coefficients approximately from low frequency to high, and as the high ones are almost always zero the vlc-rle coding before ends up being quite effective, but back to the topic, what if we for whatever odd reason want to know if a binary contains such a table?
its quite easy to find such tables by brute force, their size is something like 16 or 64 entries with no duplicates and the first entry most often being 0 and none of their entries should be larger then the number of entries in the table, heres some (old) code which i wrote quite some time ago to implement this and a few other things

And now the interresting part, what do we find with this?

 0  1  4  8 
 5  2  3  6 
 9 12 13 10 
 7 11 14 15

o-->o   o-->o
  /   /   /
o   o   o   o
| /   /   / |
o   o   o   o
  /   /   /
o-->o   o-->o

and

 0  1  2  6 
10  3  7 11 
 4  8  5  9 
12 13 14 15  

 o-->o-->o   o
         |  /|
 o   o   o / o
 | / |   |/  |
 o   o   o   o
   /
 o-->o-->o-->o
(dual scan table ascii art stolen from libavcodec/svq3.c)

in drv3.so.6.0
note these tables are the 4×4 zigzag and dualscan tables from an old H.264 draft, so RV30 seems to be a H.264 variant like SVQ3

You have a piece of code, its too slow so you want to optimize it, but to do that you first need to be able to meassure its speed, otherwise you wont know if a change improved speed or not

Benchmarking a piece of code sounds easy but it isnt, you can try to do it with various standard “get the current time” functions but these tend to be very inaccurate, canned tools like gprof are an option too, but in my experience they are also inaccurate and they can produce highly misleading results due to function inlining. A more accurate method on the x86 architecture is to use rdtsc

So now we have a accurate method to get the current “time” but what now? simply running the code once and getting the time before and afterwards? This would be a very bad choice as the first time a piece of code is executed its not in the code cache, the data isnt in the data cache, branch prediction has not seen the code yet, … so we could ignore the first few iterations, but still a single measurement isnt very trustworthy, next improvement would be to average many interations but still its very sensitive, just think about what happens when the kernel decides to stop your program and give the cpu to your mp3 player, its like having a interation which needs 50 times longer then the average assuming the code between the rdtsc instructions doesnt take too long. Solving this is easy though, just discard such outliers which need many times the average (see the START/STOP_TIMER macros in ffmpeg/libavutil/common.h)

Can CRCs be used to fix a whole messed up byte? Yes as long as the codeword (data bits + crc bits) is less then whats in this table under 8≤b:

table was created with crc_test_v2.c

To actually correct byte errors the code below could be used, a complete example (crc_test_byte.c) is available too.

static int get_error(unsigned int crc, unsigned int len, int *error){
    int i;

    for(i=0; i<len; i++){
        if(!(crc & ~255)){
            *error= crc;
            return i;
        }
        crc= (crc>>1) ^ (((G>>1)|0x80000000) & (-(crc&1)));
    }
    return -1;
}

1 and 2 bit errors can easily be corrected by using the following code snippet, a complete example is available too.

    unsigned int i,v=1;
    for(i=0; i<block_size ; i++){
        crctab[i][0]= i ? (v^1) : v;
        crctab[i][1]= i;
        v= (v<<1) ^ (G & (((int)v)>>31));
    }

    qsort(crctab, BLOCK_SIZE, 2*sizeof(int), cmp);

static int get_error(unsigned int crc, unsigned int len, int error[2]){
    int i;

    for(i=0; i<len ; i++){
        int *result= bsearch(&crc, crctab, BLOCK_SIZE, 2*sizeof(int), cmp);
        if(result){
            error[0]= i;
            error[1]= result[1] + i;
            return 1 + (result != crctab[0]);
        }
        crc= (crc>>1) ^ (((G>>1)|0x80000000) & (-(crc&1)));
    }
    return -1;
}

Note, if you want to use this in anything where speed matters, then you should replace the qsort/bsearch with some hash table, i didnt as the c stadard doesnt contain any useable hashtable implementation and i was lazy

Cyclic Redundancy Check codes are commonly used for detecting errors, but they can also be used to correct single and multibit errors. To be able to correct e errors per code word and detect code words with d errors, its needed for the minimum hamming distance of a code to be > 2e+d
So what is the relation between the code word length and the minimum hamming distances for crc codes?

These where found using crc_test.c
Actually correcting errors is pretty trivial, for a single bit error, feeding the code below with the calculated crc XOR the received crc, will give you the distance from the end where the error ocured, and yeah if they match (crc=0) thn theres no single bit error

int get_single_error(int crc, int len){
    int i, v=1;

    for(i=0; i<len ; i++){
        if(v == crc)
            return i;
        v= (v<<1) ^ (generator_polynom & (v>>31));
    }
    return -1;
}

ill post some code examples to fix multibit errors later …

Ive added some -vf uspp (PP by (mis)using the snow codec) based images to pp vs. spp filters, the reason for uspp=6 instead of higher values is that higher ones wake the OOM-killer :-) the reason for the lack of pp=ac/ha/va based samples is that they look identical to the pp=de/hb/vb