A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Video Compression?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 11th 13, 01:15 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default Video Compression?

Well, this is a bit off topic, but I thought I'd just ask.

If one chooses to "grayscale" a video (remove the color info), can one then
recompress the video a lot more while keeping the same video resolution
detail (i.e., due to eliminating wasting storage of any color information in
the compressed file)?

I guess one could ask the same question regarding storing images, too.
IOW, could one convert a 1 MB color JPEG to perhaps 250 KB, and yet retain
the same detailing (minus the color)


Ads
  #2  
Old June 11th 13, 03:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Video Compression?

Bill in Co wrote:
Well, this is a bit off topic, but I thought I'd just ask.

If one chooses to "grayscale" a video (remove the color info), can one then
recompress the video a lot more while keeping the same video resolution
detail (i.e., due to eliminating wasting storage of any color information in
the compressed file)?

I guess one could ask the same question regarding storing images, too.
IOW, could one convert a 1 MB color JPEG to perhaps 250 KB, and yet retain
the same detailing (minus the color)


I tried it.

1) Windows Movie Maker
2) Drop my favorite test clip (~30 minutes) into timeline.
3) Save output as MovieRGB in "High Quality Video (Large)" format.
4) Go back to timeline. Click on the clip. Select special
effects and apply Grayscale.
5) Save output as MovieGray in "High Quality Video (Large)" format.

Results.

Moviergb.wmv 56,671,234 bytes
Moviegray.wmv 50,380,744 bytes

So not a huge saving. A small savings possible.

Codec info - Video was Windows Media Video 9,
Audio was Windows Media Audio 9.1 44KHz stereo

*******

The lossy compression methods, work in the frequency domain.
Reducing the color palette, doesn't necessarily change the frequency
(sharpness) of the thing. Which is why perhaps there isn't that much savings.

I'll leave the testing of the JPG compression, to you :-)
You can see DCT mentioned in here, as part of the compression.
I like this article, for the set of images versus quality
setting, which is convenient if you ever need to know in
advance, what kind of Q setting to use for a particular job.
Q=10 and 46:1 compression, still looks pretty good. Q=1, not
so much. You could test at a constant Q, try your gray and color
images, and see what a diff it makes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg

Paul

  #3  
Old June 12th 13, 11:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default Video Compression?

Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:
Well, this is a bit off topic, but I thought I'd just ask.

If one chooses to "grayscale" a video (remove the color info), can one
then
recompress the video a lot more while keeping the same video resolution
detail (i.e., due to eliminating wasting storage of any color information
in
the compressed file)?

I guess one could ask the same question regarding storing images, too.
IOW, could one convert a 1 MB color JPEG to perhaps 250 KB, and yet
retain
the same detailing (minus the color)


I tried it.

1) Windows Movie Maker
2) Drop my favorite test clip (~30 minutes) into timeline.
3) Save output as MovieRGB in "High Quality Video (Large)" format.
4) Go back to timeline. Click on the clip. Select special
effects and apply Grayscale.
5) Save output as MovieGray in "High Quality Video (Large)" format.

Results.

Moviergb.wmv 56,671,234 bytes
Moviegray.wmv 50,380,744 bytes

So not a huge saving. A small savings possible.

Codec info - Video was Windows Media Video 9,
Audio was Windows Media Audio 9.1 44KHz stereo

*******

The lossy compression methods, work in the frequency domain.
Reducing the color palette, doesn't necessarily change the frequency
(sharpness) of the thing. Which is why perhaps there isn't that much
savings.

I'll leave the testing of the JPG compression, to you :-)
You can see DCT mentioned in here, as part of the compression.
I like this article, for the set of images versus quality
setting, which is convenient if you ever need to know in
advance, what kind of Q setting to use for a particular job.
Q=10 and 46:1 compression, still looks pretty good. Q=1, not
so much. You could test at a constant Q, try your gray and color
images, and see what a diff it makes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg

Paul


Thanks for the test, Paul. Seems like not much reduction in filesize.
I haven't tried it on a JPG yet. :-)

I was just trying to reason it out ahead of time (if it would even be
applicable), since I don't really understand the compression algorithms yet,
and how and when and where they are applied.

Although I did know that color info (whenever and wherever it is being
encoded and compressed) is normally given reduced weighting due to the eye
being less sensitive, there).


  #4  
Old June 14th 13, 09:21 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Video Compression?

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:
Well, this is a bit off topic, but I thought I'd just ask.

If one chooses to "grayscale" a video (remove the color info), can one
then
recompress the video a lot more while keeping the same video resolution
detail (i.e., due to eliminating wasting storage of any color information
in
the compressed file)?

I guess one could ask the same question regarding storing images, too.
IOW, could one convert a 1 MB color JPEG to perhaps 250 KB, and yet
retain
the same detailing (minus the color)


I tried it.

[]
Moviergb.wmv 56,671,234 bytes
Moviegray.wmv 50,380,744 bytes

[]
I suspect it may also be affected by the source of the colour
information in the video. If it's from older source material, where the
colour _difference_ signal has been bandwidth-limited (PAL, SECAM, NTSC,
video tape recorders), then it may be different from a video that
records the full RGB difference, as most modern material probably does.
I _suspect_ the ones with the bandwidth-limited colour difference signal
would give less reduction in size when greyscaled.

I think still images even uncompressed - i. e. BMP or similar - use
fewer bytes per pixel in greyscale. Colour ones often contain at least a
byte for each of the RGB elements of a pixel, making 24 bits; greyscale
images rarely benefit from more than 64K levels of grey (2 bytes), and
often 256 levels (1 byte) is sufficient.

It also depends a lot on the image type: if it has few
colours/greylevels (things like cartoons and logos), GIF can beat JPEG
(it certainly doesn't lose detail, i. e. is lossless).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly
fact. - Thomas Henry Huxley
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.