[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] RDFT for Bink and QDM2
Alex Converse
alex.converse
Fri Jan 23 22:13:10 CET 2009
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 04:04:09PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 01:08:50PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:56:24AM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 06:03:36PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 04:45:09PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 01:12:30PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 03:19:46PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:24:06PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 07:44:38PM -0500, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > [...]
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > [...]
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> +/**
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> + * Sets up a real FFT.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> + * @param nbits Log2 of the length of the input array
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> + * @param inverse If TRUE, perform the inverse of the transform
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > i suggest if 0 perform the forward transform, if 1 perform the inverse
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> I believe these are equivalent.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > I searched for TRUE in the iso C standard and found no match.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > But lets assume it where defined as 1, this doesnt document any
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > other value, is inverse=2 or 0 invalid? the forward transform?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > 99% of the people will guess correct but why write something ambigous if
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > it can be written unambigous ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> + * @param sign_convention The sign of j of the forward FFT.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > i do not understand this, j is a variable that has no clear relation to a FFT
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> j is the unit vector in the vertical direction on the complex plane. j
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> = sqrt(-1).
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > wasnt that i, i for imaginary?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> The forward DFT can be defined as:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> X_k = \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} x_n e^{-{2\pi j \over N} nk }
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> It also can be defined as
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> X_k = \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} x_n e^{{2\pi j \over N} nk }
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > you can, but why would we need it?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Bink uses it. As per the comments, the inverse of this transform is
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > not simply the transform with the opposite sign convention.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > maybe iam too tired but i see just one transform
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > X[ k] = sum(n=0..N-1) x[n] e^(-2pi*i*n*k / N)
>> >> >> >> >> >> > | k= N-m
>> >> >> >> >> >> > X[N-m] = sum(n=0..N-1) x[n] e^(-2pi*i*n*(N-m) / N)
>> >> >> >> >> >> > X[N-m] = sum(n=0..N-1) x[n] e^(-2pi*i*n*N / N - 2pi*i*n*-m / N)
>> >> >> >> >> >> > X[N-m] = sum(n=0..N-1) x[n] e^(-2pi*i*n + 2pi*i*n*m / N)
>> >> >> >> >> >> > X[N-m] = sum(n=0..N-1) x[n] e^( 2pi*i*n*m / N)e^(-2pi*i*n)
>> >> >> >> >> >> > X[N-m] = sum(n=0..N-1) x[n] e^( 2pi*i*n*m / N)
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The twiddle has to happen in the frequency domain so we have 4 cases:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > i have no clue what you talk about, but after a little testing i have
>> >> >> >> >> > some doubt that your code works at all.
>> >> >> >> >> > for example
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > ff_rdft_init(&one, 7, 1, 0);
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> sign_convention takes +/- 1. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > followng shows empirically
>> >> >> >> > that the transforms are identical short of trivial changes
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ff_rdft_init(&one, bits, 1, -1);
>> >> >> >> > ff_rdft_init(&two, bits, 1, 1);
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > for(i=0; i<N; i++)
>> >> >> >> > src[i] = dst1[i] = (i + 2*i*i - 7*i*i*i + 123) % 1000;
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > for(i=0; i<N; i++){
>> >> >> >> > dst2[i] = dst1[i];
>> >> >> >> > if((i&1) && i!=1)
>> >> >> >> > dst2[i]*=-1;
>> >> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ff_rdft_calc(&one, dst1);
>> >> >> >> > ff_rdft_calc(&two, dst2);
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, it can be done as yet another pre/post processing loop. Or it can
>> >> >> >> be simply included as part of the transform.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > or the decoder can be fixed so it stores the values with the correct signs
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There is no such thing as "the correct sign." It's simply a matter of
>> >> >> convention,
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, if you define teh RDFT as a real input DFT than there is no convention
>> >> > that you can change unless you change the DFT as well
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> We have an option to choose the sign convention for the DFT it is
>> >> simply the iDFT. You can think of the RDFT with opposite sign
>> >> convention as the RiDFT.
>> >
>> > RDFT, RiDFT, iRDFT, iRiDFT :)
>> >
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >> >
>> >> >> and in this case, considering the code we already have,
>> >> >> the problem is easier to solve with the positive sign convention.
>> >> >
>> >> > We should surely pick what is simpler, used by more important codecs
>> >> > and allows more tables to be shared and is closer to established conventions
>> >> > i dont know which of the 2 that neccessarily is ...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Assuming the forward and inverse RDFT are implemented, adding the
>> >> opposite sign convention does not add any new tables.
>> >
>> > well, at least sign_convention should be replaced by something less
>> > error prone, maybe a enum combining it with inverse
>> >
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>> The enum lead me in the direction of readable vs bit-twiddly for the
>> _init function.
> [...]
>
>> + * @param sign_convention sign of the imaginary variable in the forward FFT
>> + */
>> +int ff_rdft_init(RDFTContext *s, int nbits, enum RDFTransformType trans);
>
> sign_convention ?
>
> except that the patch is probably ok
>
I had forgotten to update the documentation.
--Alex
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rdft.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 8378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090123/70fbb020/attachment.diff>
More information about the ffmpeg-devel
mailing list