I am working on a novel technique that uses already encoded H264 motion vectors from a pre-encoded video.
I need to know how the motion vectors and residuals are related. I need some very specific answers that I can't find answered anywhere else:
Are the motion vectors forward, or backward? I mean, does the vector indicate where the current 4x4 or 8x8, 8x4 .... block will be in the next frame (forward). Or is it the opposite? (That in the block it is indicated where that block comes from), (backwards).
In the case a block has multiple references (I don't know if that is even possible). How are those references added together? Mean? Weighted?
How is the residual error being compensated, per block (4x8, 8x4, etc)? Ignoring the sub blocks, and just partitioning the image in 8x8 chunks?
My ultimate goal, is to know from the video feed the "accuracy" of each motion vector. I can only do that with backwards prediction, and if the DCT residuals are per block. In that case I can measure the accuracy of the motion vector estimation by measuring the amount of residual error of that block.
Thanks in advance!!
PD: Reading trough the 800 pages of H264 is not easy task....
The H264 standard is your friend. Also get the books by Ian Richardson, a bit more readable than the standard (but only a bit :)
"Are the motion vectors forward, or backward?" - they are backward. The MV for a block points to where that block came from.
"In the case a block has multiple references (I don't know if that is even possible). How are those references added together?" - it is possible, check out weightb and weightp options for x264. Can have up to two references, the explicit weights are encoded in the stream (I think as deltas from the neighbor weights, so usually zeros - but don't quote me on that; also I think whether weights are used is a flag somewhere, if not used the weights are equal by default)
"How is the residual error being compensated" - depends on the macroblock partitioning mode and transform size. The MVs are for each partition, the residuals are for the transform size tiled into the partition (so if a 16x16 is partitioned into two 16x8 and the transform is 8x8, each partition gets two transforms; if the transform is 4x4 each partition gets (16/4)x(8/4)=8 transforms).
For experiments, you can change encoder settings to turn off B-frames and weighted P-frames, and also restrict the partitioning mode to not partition (ie 16x16 only). This allows much easier way to try different motion vectors :)
Related
I would like to know how one could generate a wavetable out of a wav file for example.
I know a wavetable can be used in web audio api with setPerdiodic wave and I know how to use it.
But what do I need to do to create my own wavetables? I read about inverse FFT, but I did find nearly nothing. I don't need any code just an idea or a formula of how to get the wavetable from an wav file to a Buffer.
There are a few constraints here and I'm not sure how good the result will be.
Your wav file source can't be too long; the PeriodicWave object
only supports arrays up to size 8192 or so.
I'm going to assume your waveform is intended to be periodic. If the
last sample and the first aren't reasonably close to each other,
there will be a hard-to-reproduce jump.
The waveform must have zero mean, so if it doesn't you should remove
the mean.
With that taken care of, select a power of two greater than the length
of your wave file (not strictly needed, but most FFTs expect powers of
two). Zero-pad the wave file if the length is not a power of two.
Then compute the the FFT. You'll either get an array of complex
numbers or two arrays. Separate these out to real and imaginary
arrays and use them for contructing the PeriodicWave.
I want to fit a curve to data obtained from an FFT. While working on this, I remembered that an FFT gives binned data, and therefore I wondered if I should treat this differently with curve-fitting.
If the bins are narrow compared to the structure, I think it should not be necessary to treat the data differently, but for me that is not the case.
I expect the right way to fit binned data is by minimizing not the difference between values of the bin and fit, but between bin area and the area beneath the fitted curve, for each bin, such that the energy in each bin matches the energy in the range of the bin as signified by the curve.
So my question is: am I thinking correctly about this? If not, how should I go about it?
Also, when looking around for information about this subject, I encountered the "Maximum log likelihood" for example, but did not find enough information about it to understand if and how it applied to my situation.
PS: I have no clue if this is the right site for this question, please let me know if there is a better place.
For an unwindowed FFT, the correct interpolation between bins is by using a Sinc (sin(x)/x) or periodic Sinc (Dirichlet) interpolation kernel. For an FFT of samples of a band-limited signal, thus will reconstruct the continuous spectrum.
A very simple and effective way of interpolating the spectrum (from an FFT) is to use zero-padding. It works both with and without windowing prior to the FFT.
Take your input vector of length N and extend it to length M*N, where M is an integer
Set all values beyond the original N values to zeros
Perform an FFT of length (N*M)
Calculate the magnitude of the ouput bins
What you get is the interpolated spectrum.
Best regards,
Jens
This can be done by using maximum log likelihood estimation. This is a method that finds the set of parameters that is most likely to have yielded the measured data - the technique originates in statistics.
I have finally found an understandable source for how to apply this to binned data. Sadly I cannot enter formulas here, so I refer to that source for a full explanation: slide 4 of this slide show.
EDIT:
For noisier signals this method did not seem to work very well. A method that was a bit more robust is a least squares fit, where the difference between the area is minimized, as suggested in the question.
I have not found any literature to defend this method, but it is similar to what happens in the maximum log likelihood estimation, and yields very similar results for noiseless test cases.
I went through how DCT (discrete cosine transform) is used in image and video compression standards.
But why DCT only is preferred over other transforms like dft or dst?
Because cos(0) is 1, the first (0th) coefficient of DCT-II is the mean of the values being transformed. This makes the first coefficient of each 8x8 block represent the average tone of its constituent pixels, which is obviously a good start. Subsequent coefficients add increasing levels of detail, starting with sweeping gradients and continuing into increasingly fiddly patterns, and it just so happens that the first few coefficients capture most of the signal in photographic images.
Sin(0) is 0, so the DSTs start with an offset of 0.5 or 1, and the first coefficient is a gentle mound rather than a flat plain. That is unlikely to suit ordinary images, and the result is that DSTs require more coefficients than DCTs to encode most blocks.
The DCT just happens to suit. That is really all there is to it.
When performing image compression, our best bet is to perform the KLT or the Karhunen–Loève transform as it results in the least possible mean square error between the original and the compressed image. However, KLT is dependent on the input image, which makes the compression process impractical.
DCT is the closest approximation to the KL Transform. Mostly we are interested in low frequency signals so only even component is necessary hence its computationally feasible to compute only DCT.
Also, the use of cosines rather than sine functions is critical for compression as fewer cosine functions are needed to approximate a typical signal (See Douglas Bagnall's answer for further explanation).
Another advantage of using cosines is the lack of discontinuities. In DFT, since the signal is represented periodically, when truncating representation coefficients, the signal will tend to "lose its form". In DCT, however, due to the continuous periodic structure, the signal can withstand relatively more coefficient truncation but still keep the desired shape.
The DCT of a image macroblock where the top and bottom and/or the left and right edges don't match will have less energy in the higher frequency coefficients than a DFT. Thus allowing greater opportunities for these high coefficients to be removed, more coarsely quantized or compressed, without creating more visible macroblock boundary artifacts.
DCT is preferred over DFT (Discrete Fourier Transformation) and KLT (Karhunen-Loeve Transformation)
1. Fast algorithm
2. Good energy compaction
3. Only real coefficients
I have a series of data and need to detect peak values in the series within a certain number of readings (window size) and excluding a certain level of background "noise." I also need to capture the starting and stopping points of the appreciable curves (ie, when it starts ticking up and then when it stops ticking down).
The data are high precision floats.
Here's a quick sketch that captures the most common scenarios that I'm up against visually:
One method I attempted was to pass a window of size X along the curve going backwards to detect the peaks. It started off working well, but I missed a lot of conditions initially not anticipated. Another method I started to work out was a growing window that would discover the longer duration curves. Yet another approach used a more calculus based approach that watches for some velocity / gradient aspects. None seemed to hit the sweet spot, probably due to my lack of experience in statistical analysis.
Perhaps I need to use some kind of a statistical analysis package to cover my bases vs writing my own algorithm? Or would there be an efficient method for tackling this directly with SQL with some kind of local max techniques? I'm simply not sure how to approach this efficiently. Each method I try it seems that I keep missing various thresholds, detecting too many peak values or not capturing entire events (reporting a peak datapoint too early in the reading process).
Ultimately this is implemented in Ruby and so if you could advise as to the most efficient and correct way to approach this problem with Ruby that would be appreciated, however I'm open to a language agnostic algorithmic approach as well. Or is there a certain library that would address the various issues I'm up against in this scenario of detecting the maximum peaks?
my idea is simple, after get your windows of interest you will need find all the peaks in this window, you can just compare the last value with the next , after this you will have where the peaks occur and you can decide where are the best peak.
I wrote one simple source in matlab to show my idea!
My example are in wave from audio file :-)
waveFile='Chick_eco.wav';
[y, fs, nbits]=wavread(waveFile);
subplot(2,2,1); plot(y); legend('Original signal');
startIndex=15000;
WindowSize=100;
endIndex=startIndex+WindowSize-1;
frame = y(startIndex:endIndex);
nframe=length(frame)
%find the peaks
peaks = zeros(nframe,1);
k=3;
while(k <= nframe - 1)
y1 = frame(k - 1);
y2 = frame(k);
y3 = frame(k + 1);
if (y2 > 0)
if (y2 > y1 && y2 >= y3)
peaks(k)=frame(k);
end
end
k=k+1;
end
peaks2=peaks;
peaks2(peaks2<=0)=nan;
subplot(2,2,2); plot(frame); legend('Get Window Length = 100');
subplot(2,2,3); plot(peaks); legend('Where are the PEAKS');
subplot(2,2,4); plot(frame); legend('Peaks in the Window');
hold on; plot(peaks2, '*');
for j = 1 : nframe
if (peaks(j) > 0)
fprintf('Local=%i\n', j);
fprintf('Value=%i\n', peaks(j));
end
end
%Where the Local Maxima occur
[maxivalue, maxi]=max(peaks)
you can see all the peaks and where it occurs
Local=37
Value=3.266296e-001
Local=51
Value=4.333496e-002
Local=65
Value=5.049438e-001
Local=80
Value=4.286804e-001
Local=84
Value=3.110046e-001
I'll propose a couple of different ideas. One is to use discrete wavelets, the other is to use the geographer's concept of prominence.
Wavelets: Apply some sort of wavelet decomposition to your data. There are multiple choices, with Daubechies wavelets being the most widely used. You want the low frequency peaks. Zero out the high frequency wavelet elements, reconstruct your data, and look for local extrema.
Prominence: Those noisy peaks and valleys are of key interest to geographers. They want to know exactly which of a mountain's multiple little peaks is tallest, the exact location of the lowest point in the valley. Find the local minima and maxima in your data set. You should have a sequence of min/max/min/max/.../min. (You might want to add an arbitrary end points that are lower than your global minimum.) Consider a min/max/min sequence. Classify each of these triples per the difference between the max and the larger of the two minima. Make a reduced sequence that replaces the smallest of these triples with the smaller of the two minima. Iterate until you get down to a single min/max/min triple. In your example, you want the next layer down, the min/max/min/max/min sequence.
Note: I'm going to describe the algorithmic steps as if each pass were distinct. Obviously, in a specific implementation, you can combine steps where it makes sense for your application. For the purposes of my explanation, it makes the text a little more clear.
I'm going to make some assumptions about your problem:
The windows of interest (the signals that you are looking for) cover a fraction of the entire data space (i.e., it's not one long signal).
The windows have significant scope (i.e., they aren't one pixel wide on your picture).
The windows have a minimum peak of interest (i.e., even if the signal exceeds the background noise, the peak must have an additional signal excess of the background).
The windows will never overlap (i.e., each can be examined as a distinct sub-problem out of context of the rest of the signal).
Given those, you can first look through your data stream for a set of windows of interest. You can do this by making a first pass through the data: moving from left to right, look for noise threshold crossing points. If the signal was below the noise floor and exceeds it on the next sample, that's a candidate starting point for a window (vice versa for the candidate end point).
Now make a pass through your candidate windows: compare the scope and contents of each window with the values defined above. To use your picture as an example, the small peaks on the left of the image barely exceed the noise floor and do so for too short a time. However, the window in the center of the screen clearly has a wide time extent and a significant max value. Keep the windows that meet your minimum criteria, discard those that are trivial.
Now to examine your remaining windows in detail (remember, they can be treated individually). The peak is easy to find: pass through the window and keep the local max. With respect to the leading and trailing edges of the signal, you can see n the picture that you have a window that's slightly larger than the actual point at which the signal exceeds the noise floor. In this case, you can use a finite difference approximation to calculate the first derivative of the signal. You know that the leading edge will be somewhat to the left of the window on the chart: look for a point at which the first derivative exceeds a positive noise floor of its own (the slope turns upwards sharply). Do the same for the trailing edge (which will always be to the right of the window).
Result: a set of time windows, the leading and trailing edges of the signals and the peak that occured in that window.
It looks like the definition of a window is the range of x over which y is above the threshold. So use that to determine the size of the window. Within that, locate the largest value, thus finding the peak.
If that fails, then what additional criteria do you have for defining a region of interest? You may need to nail down your implicit assumptions to more than 'that looks like a peak to me'.
How should stereo (2 channel) audio data be represented for FFT? Do you
A. Take the average of the two channels and assign it to the real component of a number and leave the imaginary component 0.
B. Assign one channel to the real component and the other channel to the imag component.
Is there a reason to do one or the other? I searched the web but could not find any definite answers on this.
I'm doing some simple spectrum analysis and, not knowing any better, used option A). This gave me an unexpected result, whereas option B) went as expected. Here are some more details:
I have a WAV file of a piano "middle-C". By definition, middle-C is 260Hz, so I would expect the peak frequency to be at 260Hz and smaller peaks at harmonics. I confirmed this by viewing the spectrum via an audio editing software (Sound Forge). But when I took the FFT myself, with option A), the peak was at 520Hz. With option B), the peak was at 260Hz.
Am I missing something? The explanation that I came up with so far is that representing stereo data using a real and imag component implies that the two channels are independent, which, I suppose they're not, and hence the mess-up.
I don't think you're taking the average correctly. :-)
C. Process each channel separately, assigning the amplitude to the real component and leaving the imaginary component as 0.
Option B does not make sense. Option A, which amounts to convert the signal to mono, is OK (if you are interested in a global spectrum).
Your problem (double freq) is surely related to some misunderstanding in the use of your FFT routines.
Once you take the FFT you need to get the Magnitude of the complex frequency spectrum. To get the magnitude you take the absolute of the complex spectrum |X(w)|. If you want to look at the power spectrum you square the magnitude spectrum, |X(w)|^2.
In terms of your frequency shift I think it has to do with you setting the imaginary parts to zero.
If you imagine the complex Frequency spectrum as a series of complex vectors or position vectors in a cartesian space. If you took one discrete frequency bin X(w), there would be one real component representing its direction in the real axis (x -direction), and one imaginary component in the in the imaginary axis (y - direction). There are four important values about this discrete frequency, 1. real value, 2. imaginary value, 3. Magnitude and, 4. phase. If you just take the real value and set imaginary to 0, you are setting Magnitude = real and phase = 0deg or 90deg. You have hence forth modified the resulting spectrum, and applied a bias to every frequency bin. Take a look at the wiki on Magnitude of a vector, also called the Euclidean norm of a vector to brush up on your understanding. Leonbloy was correct, but I hope this was more informative.
Think of the FFT as a way to get information from a single signal. What you are asking is what is the best way to display data from two signals. My answer would be to treat each independently, and display an FFT for each.
If you want a really fast streaming FFT you can read about an algorithm I wrote here: www.depthcharged.us/?p=176