[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Snow mc_block mmx optimization
Sun Mar 26 23:13:37 CEST 2006
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:24:05PM +0200, Oded Shimon wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 09:48:41PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 03:10:17PM +0200, Oded Shimon wrote:
> > > Ping.
> > pong
> pin... missed! lost the ball.. damnit, I lose...
> > after more carefull review of this iam not so sure anymore if its a good idea
> > * doesnt this change 1/2 pel (no qpel) encoding?
> I don't see how, mc_block has the exact same behavior. From what I could
> figure from RTFS, dx and dy are always 0<=d<=15, and always even. I just
> tested out another odd resolution video (364x241), md5sum still match.
s->dsp.put_pixels_tab isnt initalized anymore so there should be a difference
with the "correct" parameters (EPZS ME no qpel subcmp!=0)
> BTW, widths that divide by 4 now do work for me, but anything less still
> mencoder: snow.c:2438: pred_block: Assertion `b_w>1 && b_h>1' failed.
> I'm not sure why only widths that divide by 8 worked for me earlier, maybe
> I was using out of date cvs. This is up to date to yesterday night though.
> BTW2, can 'assert(!(b_w&3))' ever fail in mc_block ? If not, I can remove
> the C code duplication in the mmx functions... I know b_h was still
> divisable by 8 in this odd res video. Can't know about b_w cause encoding
> doesn't work...
> > * currently we have 2 different MC variants, 1. the h.264 case for 1/4 pel
> > and our own for 1/8 pel, i really disslike this, we should attempt to
> > find a more unified method
> I'm generally clueless about this, either way, my MMX still stands and I
> would like it committed as it's the last piece missing for me to play a
> 944x544 snow file smoothly... Even the C code is significantly faster...
first comes the spec/algo then comes the optimiation
whats the speed & PSNR/bitrate of the common test videos like forman if we
would always use the mc_block() code and never the h.264 code?
More information about the ffmpeg-devel