Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a245d07898f7e88e

Jump to content

Talk:YULS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kvng in topic best compression ratio?

YULS and MSU relations

[edit]

As I would conclude, YULS is developed by the same people who developed MSU Lossless Video Codec. I suspect that MSU codec should be considered as a renamed version of MSU codec, but I can't find any information on this topic. If found, it should be added to the article. Furthermore, the comparison in the article is conducted by the authors of these codecs, so it might have biases towards them. Actually, I suspect that both codecs mentioned above were developed to score in this comparison. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've contacted the author of MSU, and it appears that MSU and YULS are developed as a part of a competition of a kind. They are created by different people, though there is a common person, whose input in both cases was limited to discussing the underlying ideas. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

best compression ratio?

[edit]

Did a quick and dirty benchmark by comparing YULS with FFV1, HuffYUV and Lagarith. Since YULS has a resolution limit of 1024x768 (outdated much?), I'm working with a resolution of 1024x432 (resized and cropped) for all codecs and the raw (including avi container overhead). The source is the raw trailer for Sintel:

Codec RGB YUV12
RAW 1623926 KiB (100%) 811982 KiB (100%)
YULS 193404 KiB (11.910%) 85558 KiB (10.537%)
FFV1 233498 KiB (14.379%) 106252 KiB (13.086%)
HuffYUV Incompatible 168184 KiB (20.713%)
Lagarith 272551 KiB (16.783%) 124240 KiB (15.301%)

So in this case, it does provide the best compression. Story might be different with more stationary pictures (eg desktop screen capture) and real world recordings. My conclusion: I don't see the point in using it. It provides only marginal improvement over size, but is unsuited for video editing as it is very slow in comparison (around 1/80 the speed of multithreaded(4x) Lagarith) and its resolution limitations (multiple of 16, max. 1024x768) make it only usable in few environments.Oehr (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have softened this claim. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply