
New Solution Can Cut Video File Size By Half – Without Losing Quality - jackau
http://nocamels.com/2013/02/beamr-can-cut-video-file-size-by-half-without-losing-quality/
======
midvar
Especially since this states H.264 compliance, I'd be willing to say this
can't possibly live up to it's claims.

Video encoders are notorious for their bloated claims and faulty comparisons.
After a quick perusal of their site I see they compare themselves only to
web-m, and use generalized %'s to claim differences between products and
processes.

They say they've optimized for human perceptual quality. Perhaps they have.
But did they really do a better job than the open source H.264 alternative
(x264) used by everyone from YouTube and Hulu, to Facebook? One thats been in
development for _years_ now and beats just about everything thrown at it in a
fair comparison? I think not. I'd love to be wrong though.

When they do eventually come out with comparisons, I hope they have read this
first : <http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/472>

------
gmartres
From beamrvideo.com, Clip1_mini.mov contains:

    
    
      videomini ver. 90.15 options: cabac=1 ref=3 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x3:0x113 me=umh subme=8 psy=1 psy_rd=1.00:0.00 mixed_ref=1 me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=1 8x8dct=1 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1 chroma_qp_offset=-2 threads=1 sliced_threads=0 nr=0 decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=0 weightp=2 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40 intra_refresh=0 rc_lookahead=40 rc=crf mbtree=1 crf=23.0 qcomp=0.60 qpmin=10 qpmax=51 qpstep=4 ip_ratio=1.41 aq=1:1.00
    

And Clip2_mini.mov contains:

    
    
      videomini ver. 89.15 options: cabac=1 ref=3 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x3:0x113 me=umh subme=8 psy=0 mixed_ref=1 me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=1 8x8dct=1 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1 chroma_qp_offset=0 threads=1 sliced_threads=0 nr=0 decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=0 weightp=2 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40 intra_refresh=0 rc=crf mbtree=0 crf=23.0 qcomp=0.60 qpmin=10 qpmax=51 qpstep=4 ip_ratio=1.40 aq=1:1.00
    

For comparaison, here's what a clip encoded with x264 contains: x264 - core
125 r2200 999b753 - H.264/MPEG-4 AVC codec - Copyleft 2003-2012 -
<http://www.videolan.org/x264.html> \- options: cabac=1 ref=1 deblock=1:0:0
analyse=0x1:0x111 me=hex subme=5 psy=1 psy_rd=1.00:0.00 mixed_ref=0
me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=0 8x8dct=0 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1
chroma_qp_offset=0 threads=6 lookahead_threads=1 sliced_threads=0 nr=0
decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=0
weightp=2 keyint=240 keyint_min=23 scenecut=40 intra_refresh=0 rc_lookahead=40
rc=2pass mbtree=1 bitrate=373 ratetol=1.0 qcomp=0.60 qpmin=10 qpmax=51
qpstep=4 cplxblur=20.0 qblur=0.5 ip_ratio=1.40 aq=1:1.00

So their encoder is based on x264 (without credit). The settings are slightly
different between the clips, so maybe they have some magic thing to detect
which settings to use. In any case, it'd be interesting to reencode the
original clip using plain x264, once using the same options they used and once
using some sane x264 preset.

~~~
Daiz
>In any case, it'd be interesting to reencode the original clip using plain
x264, once using the same options they used and once using some sane x264
preset.

I'm up for that. It'll take a while to download all the source videos, but
I'll report back with results and videos when I'm done.

I already did a test encode with x264 --preset veryslow --tune film --level
4.0 --crf 21 on the Bourne Identity clip, and the result is within the same
realm than the Beamr video with ~58% the filesize. Which is not surprising at
all, considering Beamr's settings.

EDIT: Testing with nearly identical settings (x264 --bframes 0 -- subme 8
--no-psy --no-mbtree) using the latest x264 gives me about 40% the bitrate of
the Beamr example for the Bourne Identity clip, which unsurprisingly looks
notably worse. So maybe Beamr's "magical" encoding technology is all about
fiddling with x264's CRF to make it double the bitrate at a given value
compared to vanilla x264?

~~~
ezran
Justin from Zencoder here... I've been doing a bit of similar testing and
seeing similar results. So they're obviously controlling the settings per
frame (or per segment) during the encode, meaning the values in that encoder
line are not very useful in analyzing what they're doing.

I'm definitely seeing a loss in quality on the "mini" encodes relative to the
source -- mostly in loss of grain, and fine details (in hair, etc).

However, if they're analyzing the motion within the video and using perceptual
algorithms to determine what the focal points are, etc. then it's totally fair
to throw away details in sections that are peripheral, and likewise getting
rid of grain in a blurred-out portion of the screen that's panning makes sense
if your eye wouldn't perceive that anyway. This seems to be a much more
aggressive version of x264's "psy" optimizations, essentially.

So the resulting video might look very similar in quality to someone watching
the movie, but not to someone analyzing the frames and details. There's a hard
line to draw on how that's marketed -- it's not actually "without losing
quality", but it might be "without looking worse"?

~~~
Daiz
Based on the comparing I've done on the second clip so far, they seem to be
doing absolutely nothing special - at approximately the same bitrate and
settings, the videos are practically identical quality-wise (in fact, the most
recent x264 seems to fare a small bit better).

I'm going to do two sets of comparisons for each clip: Beamr's video compared
to x264 with similar settings and bitrate, and then Beamr-like settings and
high quality settings compared at a much more realistic bitrate that you would
actually see in use in digital video on the internet.

~~~
ezran
I just came back to add that, encoding 2-pass to the same bitrate that theirs
results at, I have a _very_ hard time telling the difference. I look forward
to your comparison sets.

------
josephlord
Incremental improvements in H.264 are still possible but not a halving of
bitrate in the general case. The required rate depends very much on the
content of the video and the size at which it will be viewed.

Any encoder manufacturer can find some great looking and easy to encode images
that can be massively reduced in data rate without much visible impact.
However in tougher scenarios they will be unlikely to beat the existing market
leaders by more than 10% or so under similar constraints (latentcy/CPU/multi-
pass possible) under the review of experts. Tough scenarios will be when there
is lots of noise and non-uniform movement. Pop concerts can be very
challenging with crowd movements, flashing lights and low general light levels
leading to noise.

~~~
Tloewald
The more detailed claim is 5-6Mbps streams can be reduced to 3-4, so it's more
like a 25% improvement methinks.

Their first claimed success was with JPEGmini — this is a lot more credible
since JPEG is a pretty obsolete format that simply continues because it's so
well supported. JPEG2000 delivers the purported benefits of JPEGmini for real
-- it's just poorly supported.

I suspect all they're really doing is fine-tuning compression settings based
on differencing input and output using a decent perceptual algorithm.

I uploaded a photo straight out of a Nikon V1 onto JPEGmini and got a 2.2x
reduction. I could do better than that by dialing down quality until I saw a
difference. JPEG fine is way overkill for most purposes, and that's their
market.

------
Daiz
As others have noted, Beamr's "magical" technology simply seems to be using
x264, the state-of-the-art in H.264 encoders, which also happens to be free
and open source software. Looking at their site, beamrvideo.com, the bitrates
they list for the originals are what you'll typically find on Blu-ray discs,
not on online streams. Anyone who knows a thing or two about video encoding
and x264 will know that you can re-encode these to a much smaller size while
retaining most of the visual quality. As such, claiming that they can reduce
the bitrate to half with no notable loss in quality is like claiming that you
can reduce the bit depth and sampling rate of a 24-bit 192 kHz audio file to
16-bit 48 kHz with no notable loss in quality - it's certainly true, but you
hardly needed the 24-bit 192 kHz quality to begin with.

They don't seem to have done anything new or substantial by themselves, and as
such, this thing is basically nothing but pure marketing bullshit. If you want
to do high quality H.264 encodes, just use x264 directly.

------
huhtenberg
For the lazy - <http://jpegmini.com>

    
    
      --
    

I grabbed 4th pair of their demo image [0], the high quality image is about
4.8M, the JpegMini'd version - 1.3M.

Then I took the high quality image and started bumping up standard JPEG
compression level until I reduced the file size to 1.3M. That mapped to 17/100
setting, with 1 being highest quality, 100 - highest compression).

Then I made an arithmetic per-pixel diff between the original high quality
image and two 1.3M versions. Cropped them to 2000 x 2000 and saved as PNGs
(cropping is to fit the imgur file size limits). Here they are -

<http://imgur.com/1FOwXhq>

<http://imgur.com/3efRooj>

Now, have a look and tell me that JPEGMini hasn't got something exciting going
on.

\--

[0]
[http://media.jpegmini.com/homepageImages/20121203/hipnshoot....](http://media.jpegmini.com/homepageImages/20121203/hipnshoot.zip)

~~~
deadairspace
I don't see much of a difference. Is that the point? Are you saying that
JPEGMini are just compressing to ~83% quality?

~~~
huhtenberg
No, there _is_ a noticeable difference.

JPEGMini diff shows less color fringing (fewer "colored" pixels) and it also
appears to better preserve edges and outlines.

------
mistercow
>the compression method mimics the human eye and removes elements that would
not have been processed by the human eye in the first place.

That's just a marketing hype decsription of how _all_ lossy compression works.

~~~
Xcelerate
I wrote a JPEG encoder once, and if I remember correctly you can change the
quantization tables and the Huffman tables. My encoder just used the default
tables in the standard, but it wouldn't surprise me to optimize these using a
psychovisual fitness function.

~~~
mistercow
Yes, but the default tables in the standard _do_ mimic the human eye's
limitations. That's what increasing the quant factor on higher frequencies is.

------
lucian1900
I'm a bit sceptical of such glorious claims from a company that apparently
just made a UI for a libjpeg.

~~~
pornel
AFAIK JPEGmini has much better psychovisual optimization than libjpeg, so I
think their claim that they can compress JPEG better within limits of the
format is fair.

The way you encode lossy formats makes a lot of difference. For example the
same x264 encoder gives dramatically worse results when aiming for optimal
PSNR rather than using its psychovisual optimizer:

• <http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/imagecoding/x264.png>

•
[http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/imagecoding/x264_psnr...](http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/imagecoding/x264_psnr.png)

<http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/541>

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Is it not a bit ironic to be linking to x264 developers to support the thesis
that a new H.264 encoder can be twice as effective in compressing H.264 than
the competition?

Either they've done something magical and can outcompress x264 to that degree
(i.e. in the ballpark of HEVC, yet without breaking compatability), or they're
comparing against a terrible H.264 encoder and they've just wrapped x264 in a
proprietary shell of BS (and/or they're liars?).

~~~
jfb
It's undoubtedly bullshit.

------
lutusp
Let them put up a long, complex video -- an action movie, for example -- using
H.264, and their own method, for side-by-side comparison, both with regard to
quality and file size. Let them offer something better than hand-waving press
releases.

I say this because claims like this tend to be very source-dependent. Change
the source, change the claim.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
They appear to be using modern x264. This does outperform most (all?)
commercial H.264 encoders to the degree they claim, so their claims can have
merit.

However, this also means that if you want better encoding, you can just grab
x264 and do it yourself.

~~~
lutusp
> They appear to be using modern x264. This does outperform most (all?)
> commercial H.264 encoders to the degree they claim, so their claims can have
> merit.

Yes, but it also means they're not entitled to call it a "patent pending"
method.

------
kierank
They use x264 on near-default settings.

------
batterseapower
Previously on HN: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2940505>

~~~
runn1ng
So, in the case of jpegs, their compression is not lossless, they just claim
the losses are not that perceptually visible.

Apart from the strong PR claims, this is actually not that bad, no? If you
have two lossy compressions, but one is perceptually better, you will rather
use the perceptually better one, no?

~~~
niggler
I see this in the same way that apple pitches the retina display (where
supposedly you wouldn't be able to more finely resolve pixels from some
standard distance).

------
beagle3
Just using x264 with veryslow and/or two pass setting usually cuts file sizes
by half compared to e.g. an IP or phone camera output. They could have some
magic there, but you can get similar results at home without having to pay
anyone. You just have to read a little about how to run x264.

x264 is awesome. super awesome, even.

------
ZeroGravitas
So, since it's seem to be fairly well established that they're just using
x264, anyone got any idea how they plan on making money from this, er,
product/service they're offering?

------
judofyr
What encoder did they compare it with?

------
LatvjuAvs
Of course, until you compare 1by1 pixel, you see no difference.

But when you do, yeah, I understand why size drops is that big.

