Don't Buy the Snake Oil of Beamr Video

Post by jfb » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 1:41 PM UTC

3327 wrote: post #82

drorgill wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you compare #2 and #3 and they are similar quality, what would that prove? You could do #3 for a specific file after Beamr Video has processed it, but how would you know the right bitrate for #3 without applying Bearm Video in #2?

Independent person from the industry here following this (as I am sure there are many more onlookers to this thread). drorgill i think now is the time to provide some hard empirical evidence on your part, given the initial claims and a sample test done here it is my feeling that it should be relatively trivial to provide a counter example. cheers.

Post by virtualritz » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 2:05 PM UTC

notlisted wrote: post #101

notlisted wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the fact that the original image [1] had banding issues (e.g. top left), and ignoring the fact that JPEG is a format which optimizes file size by taking advantage of the limitations of the human eye as well as typical properties of REAL photographs (ie NOT cartoons, and NOT images with largely the same tone {'orangy' in this case}), I think you have to agree that my result from the standalone JPEGMini app [3…

To add to my my point, check out these two real pictures, hope you like pink bags: OriginalPony [1] - 451kB - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-origi... JPEGMiniPony [2] - 151kB - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-jpegm... Now tell me, where is the banding? (CC, source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreamcicle/3552305929/sizes/l/i... )

Post by messel » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 2:45 PM UTC

drorgill wrote: post #60

Daiz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay then, you asked for it, so here you go. >The important thing regarding our technologies, and the main point you have missed in your analysis, is that they are used for automatic image optimization to the lowest bitrate or file size possible, and not for encoding an image or video to a specific bitrate or file size. This is exactly what the CRF mode in x264 is for. Now, in another comment you're claiming the foll…

Again, you are missing the point. Where did the CRF number of 18.5 come from? Did you test several parameters, and found what parameter gives lower bitrates than Beamr Video on this specific clip set? Would you apply the same CRF parameter of 18.5 to any video file to reduce its bitrate? And does this parameter ensure reducing the bitrate of any video file without hurting its quality? If so, you could apply it recurs…

Post by Bustard » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 6:52 PM UTC

notlisted wrote: post #101

notlisted wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the fact that the original image [1] had banding issues (e.g. top left), and ignoring the fact that JPEG is a format which optimizes file size by taking advantage of the limitations of the human eye as well as typical properties of REAL photographs (ie NOT cartoons, and NOT images with largely the same tone {'orangy' in this case}), I think you have to agree that my result from the standalone JPEGMini app [3…

To add to my my point, check out these two real pictures, hope you like pink bags: OriginalPony [1] - 451kB - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-origi... JPEGMiniPony [2] - 151kB - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-jpegm... Now tell me, where is the banding? (CC, source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreamcicle/3552305929/sizes/l/i... )

Post by Bustard » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 7:08 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #13

haven wrote: post #4

The folks behind Beamr H.264 also have a 'patent pending', proprietary JPEG image "recompression technology": http://www.jpegmini.com/ I'm curious what an analysis of one of their JPEG's would show?

JPEGmini operates on a similar principle to Beamr. The JPEGs coming out of your camera are compressed with a very high (wasteful) quantizer setting, so JPEGmini analyzes the image and recompresses with a much lower but visually identical quantizer setting.