[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] QCELP postfilter

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:37:11PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > so what arguments do we have that the code is correct?
> > it does not match the reference decoder not even slightly, and you seem to
> > argue its better not to test how close the 2 decoders match the original
> > encoder input.
> 
> Better to actually see what the difference stems from. Disregarding my
> second patch, I basically see that my first patch comes closest to
> what the binary does. PSNR (A) becomes 319.49 from ~290 by enabling

are you talking about psnr or stddev?


> postfilter in our code versus reference (i.e. psnr
> ${code}-without-postfilter.wav ${code}-with-postfilter.wav, where code
> is ourcode or refcode). Implementing the reference postfilter into our
> code leads to a PSNR of ~310, and the difference between my own code
> and that code (should be zero if it was an identical copy) is ~194
> (PSNR (B), i.e. psnr ourcode-with-refpostfilter.wav
> ourcode-with-ourpostfilter.wav). Yes, that's a lot for a postfilter
> only doing four things.

i cannot decypher what you compared or if these are really psnr values
or stddev values
please list the unedited commands you use to encode, decode and compare
and the unedited output from tiny_psnr

i also cannot comment on the rest of this mail as i have zero clue
what your psnr(a) and (b) values are

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Many things microsoft did are stupid, but not doing something just because
microsoft did it is even more stupid. If everything ms did were stupid they
would be bankrupt already.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20100401/b7d5fd17/attachment.pgp>