Video: Super Resolution – The scaler of tomorrow, here today!

If we ever had a time when most displays were the same resolution, those days are long gone with smartphone and tablets with extremely high pixel density nestled in with laptop screens of various resolutions and 1080-line TVs which are gradually being replaced with UHD variants. This means that HD videos are nearly always being upscaled which makes ‘getting upscaling right’ a really worthwhile topic. The well-known basic up/downscaling algorithms have been around for a while, and even the best-performing Lanczos is well over 20 years old. The ‘new kid on the block’ isn’t another algorithm, it’s a whole technique of inferring better upscaling using machine learning called ‘super resolution’.

Nick Chadwick from Mux has been running the code and the numbers to see how well super resolution works. Taking to the stage at Demuxed SF, he starts by looking at where scaling is used and what type it is. The most common algorithms are nearest neighbour, bi-cubic, bi-linear and lanczos with nearest neighbour being the most basic and least-well performing. Nick shows, using VMAF that using these for up and downscaling, that the traditional opinions of how well these algorithms perform are valid. He then introduces some test videos which are designed to let you see whether your video path is using bi-linear or bi-cubic upscaling, presenting his results of when bi-cubic can be seen (Safari on a MacBook Pro) as opposed to bi-linear (Chrome on a MacBook Pro). The test videos are available here.

In the next part of the talk, Nick digs a little deeper into how super resolution works and how he tested ffmpeg’s implementation of super resolution. Though he hit some difficulties in using this young filter, he is able to present some videos and shows that they are, indeed, “better to view” meaning that the text looks sharper and is easier to see with details being more easy pick out. It’s certainly possible to see some extra speckling introduced by the process, but VMAF score is around 10 points higher matching with the subjective experience.

The downsides are a very significant increase in computational power needed which limits its use in live applications plus there is a need for good, if not very good, understanding of ML concepts and coding. And, of course, it wouldn’t be the online streaming community if clients weren’t already being developed to do super-resolution on the decode despite most devices not being practically capable of it. So Nick finishes off his talk discussing what’s in progress and papers relating to the implementation of super resolution and what it can borrow from other developing technologies.

Watch now!
Speaker

Nick Chadwick Nick Chadwick
Software Engineer,
Mux

Video: Hardware Transcoding Solutions For The Cloud

Hardware encoding is more pervasive with Intel’s Quick Sync embedding CUDA GPUs inside GPUs plus NVIDIA GPUs have MPEG NVENC encoding support so how does it compare with software encoding? For HEVC, can Xilinx’s FPGA solution be a boost in terms of quality or cost compared to software encoding?

Jan Ozer has stepped up to the plate to put this all to the test analysing how many real-time encodes are possible on various cloud computing instances, the cost implications and the quality of the output. Jan’s analytical and systematic approach brings us data rather than anecdotes giving confidence in the outcomes and the ability to test it for yourself.

Over and above these elements, Jan also looks at the bit rate stability of the encodes which can be important for systems which are sensitive to variations such services running at scale. We see that the hardware AVC solutions perform better than x264.

Jan takes us through the way he set up these tests whilst sharing the relevant ffmpeg commands. Finally he shares BD plots and example images which exemplify the differences between the codecs.

Watch now!
Download the slides
Speaker

Jan Ozer Jan Ozer
Principal, Streaming Learning Center
Contributing Editor, Streaming Media

Video: Extension to 4K resolution of a Parametric Model for Perceptual Video Quality

Measuring video quality automatically is invaluable and, for many uses, essential. But as video evolves with higher frame rates, HDR, a wider colour gamut (WCG) and higher resolutions, we need to make sure the automatic evaluations evolve too. Called ‘Objective Metrics’, these computer-based assessments go by the name of PSNR, DMOS, VMAF and others. One use for these metrics is to automatically analyse an encoded video to determine if it looks good enough and should be re-encoded. This allows for the bitrate to be optimised for quality. Rafael Sotelo, from the Universidad de Montevideo, explains how his university helped work on an update to Predicted MOS to do just this.

MOS is the Mean Opinion Score and is a result derived from a group of people watching some content in a controlled environment. They vote to say how they feel about the content and the data, when combined gives an indication of the quality of the video. The trick is to enable a computer to predict what people will say. Rafael explains how this is done looking at some of the maths behind the predicted score.

In order to test any ‘upgrades’ to the objective metric, you need to test it against people’s actual score. So Rafael explains how he set up his viewing environments in both Uruguay and Italy to be compliant with BT.500. BT.500 is a standard which explains how a room should be in order to have viewing conditions which maximise the ability of the viewers to appreciate the pros and cons of the content. For instance, it explains how dim the room should be, how reflective the screens and how they should be calibrated. The guidelines don’t apply to HDR, 4K etc. so the team devised an extension to the standard in order to carryout the testing. This is called ‘subjective testing’.

With all of this work done, Rafael shows us the benefits of using this extended metric and the results achieved.

Watch now!
Speakers

Rafael Sotelo Rafael Sotelo
Director, ICT Department
Universidad de Montevideo

Video: Delivering Better Manifests with Effective VMAF

Measuring video quality is done daily around the world between two video assets. But what happens when you want to take the aggregate quality of a whole manifest? With VMAF being a well regarded metric, how can we use that in an automatic way to get the overview we need?

In this talk, Nick Chadwick from Mux shares the examples and scripts he’s been using to analyse videos. Starting with an example where everything is equal other than quality, he explains the difficulties in choosing the ‘better’ option when the variables are much less correlated. For instance, Nick also examines the situations where a video is clearly better, but where the benefit is outweighed by the minimal quality benefit and the disproportionately high bitrate requirement.

So with all of this complexity, it feels like comparing manifests may be a complexity too far, particularly where one manifest has 5 renditions, the other only 4. The question being, how do you create an aggregate video quality metric and determine whether that missing rendition is a detriment or a benefit?

Before unveiling the final solution, Nick makes the point of looking at how people are going to be using the service. Depending on the demographic and the devices people tend to use for that service, you will find different consumption ratios for the various parts of the ABR ladder. For instance, some services may see very high usage on 2nd screens which, in this case, may take low-resolution video and also lot of ‘TV’ size renditions at 1080p50 or above with little in between. Similarly other services may seldom ever see the highest resolutions being used, percentage-wise. This shows us that it’s important not only to look at the quality of each rendition but how likely it is to be seen.

To bring these thoughts together into a coherent conclusion, Nick unveils an open-source analyser which takes into account not only the VMAF score and the resolution but also the likely viewership such that we can now start to compare, for a given service, the relative merits of different ABR ladders.

The talk ends with Nick answering questions on the tendency to see jumps between different resolutions – for instance if we over-optimise and only have two renditions, it would be easy to see the switch – how to compare videos of different resolutions and also on his example user data.

Watch now!
Speakers

Nick Chadwick Nick Chadwick
Software Engineer,
Mux