Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: X.Org SoC: Gallium3D H.264, OpenGL 3.2, GNU/Hurd

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Yeah, I think that would be accelerating the parts which are a good fit with shader processing. The nice things about going with shaders are (a) to a large extent the same code can run on hardware from multiple vendors and generations, (b) the same framework can be used for codecs such as Theora which do not have support in the dedicated decoder hardware anyways. I think ON6 (Flash) falls into this category as well but not 100% sure.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,365

    Default Thanks, Bridgman!

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Yeah, I think that would be accelerating the parts which are a good fit with shader processing. The nice things about going with shaders are (a) to a large extent the same code can run on hardware from multiple vendors and generations, (b) the same framework can be used for codecs such as Theora which do not have support in the dedicated decoder hardware anyways. I think ON6 (Flash) falls into this category as well but not 100% sure.
    I'd assumed this, but, well, I was hoping they were privy to some specs that haven't been release yet
    Regardless, this will be a nice thing to have: a fairly general purpose, block based graphics accelerator. I really hope the work they do is general enough that it can be applied to other DCT codecs.

    Best/Liam

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    I really believe that the "missing link" so far has been someone grafting libavcodec onto the driver stack so that processing can be incrementally moved from CPU to GPU.

    Also, I forgot to mention that the other benefit of a shader-based implementation is that there are a lot of cards in use today which have a fair amount of shader power but which do not have dedicated decoder HW (ATI 5xx, for example).

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    BTW rather than ON6 in my earlier post I should have said VP6. ON2 is the company, VP6 is the codec

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,086

    Default

    I actually think that this shader-based approach is much more important than using the dedicated video decoder. Specifically because it IS compatible with cards without a dedicated video decoder AND that it is applicable beyond the capabilities of the dedicated video decoder.

    In addition, there won't be any need to deal with IP issues in the event that the video decoder components on future cards are just totally incompatible with older versions... so one less item of critical importance when dealing with new hardware support.

    Here's a question: on the SoC website, it says that CABAC is not suitable for GPU-acceleration, and on wikipedia it says that CABAC is horribly CPU intensive.... Does this mean that high bitrate videos that use CABAC will be beyond our decoding capability for lower-end machines? Any idea what proportion of the overall video decoding process (in a typical software decoder) would be related to CABAC? Is it going to be something manageable, like 5%, or is it going to be something overwhelming, like 95%?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    @bridgman

    Now the company is Google I think it is just a matter of time till Googles releases VP7 as open source and use that for youtube. Currently they don't have to pay for h264 content, but i think they want to be prepared to switch.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    It's still ON2, isn't it ? AFAIK the company was purchased by Google but is still operating as an independent entity so far...

    Opening up VP7 would sure solve a lot of problems.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Opening up VP7 would sure solve a lot of problems.
    I'm not so sure about that. I don't think it's better than Theora (or atleast not by much) quality-wise. And afaik the biggest problems Nokia and Apple have with Theora is the lack of dedicated hardware-decoders, especially in already existing devices like the iPhone and N900. And this is no different with VP7 as far as I can tell.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    Guys, isn't it VP8 we're hoping to open up? 7 wouldn't be as useful.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    Right VP8 is the latest.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •