Re: JPEG press release

I think somebody's been reading "The blind watchmaker" and then talking 
about it down the pub ;-)

Anyway, a valid analysis of information space as it applies to algorithms.

To break away from singularly derivative codecs and algorithms it will 
be neccesary to know what the lay of the land is. We need in effect to 
go backwards in time to earlier hopefully now patent unencumbered codecs 
and see if there any roads less travelled to explore.

An online resource of known codecs old and new written out simply would 
be a great help in applying the numerous minds to these problems. 
Getting a quick check on if somebody has thought about your wild mad 
idea before you and what problems they had.

Another point is that if it's an online repository of mad ideas, we have 
a collection of prior art for any future coporate  patent bollocks. A 
wiki connected to CVS would be a good start.

Simon...

dan miller wrote:

>This discussion reminds me of the argument between
>'gradualism' and 'punctured equilibrium' (I think
>that's the phrase??) in the study of evolution and the
>creation of species.  I think the truth is that both
>things happen: there are gradual changes, which
>provide small, incremental, measurable improvements;
>and there are (very occasionally) quantum leaps,
>changes in paradigm that provide a massive, unexpected
>increase in performance on some scale (Andy Grove said
>that these sorts of disruptive inventions cause
>'inflection points', where opportunities arise to make
>decisions with increased risks and rewards).
>
>The art and science of video compression is a good
>example of a field where this sort of process is
>ongoing.  Generating better compression algorithms is
>basically a massive global optimization problem within
>the space of all possible codecs.  There are a number
>of complex tradeoffs, with nonlinear relationships --
>the classic NP problem, where there is no closed-form
>solution possible.  The only option is to try things,
>and see if they work. 
>
>In general, the things that work today, with minor
>variations, are going to be the most fertile ground
>for improvements, if you're not looking for a major
>leap.  This is essentially a 'local optimization'
>within the search space of possible algorithms.  Think
>of 'algorithm space' as a density function on a
>multi-dimensional space (or an N-dimensional surface
>in N+1 dimensions).  Making small changes to our
>algorithm is analogous to moving a small distance on
>this surface.  To make improvements, we sample a few
>points near our present location, determining a
>direction in which our slope leads to a 'higher point'
>on the hill (ie a better algorithm).  Then we move in
>this direction until we see a decrease (or leveling
>off) in performance, in which case we reset our
>direction.  Eventually, we find a point where every
>direction appears to cause a decrease in performance;
>we are now on top of a local hill -- a local optimum
>in our parameter space (the space of all possible
>compression algorithms).  If, on the other hand, we
>move to a location relatively far away from our
>present hilltop, the overwhelming probability is that
>we will end up in a spot at a lower elevation than
>where we started, since we presumably started at a
>location considerably higher than average. 
>Consequently, novel techniques, in their initial form,
>are almost always less impressive than the highly
>tuned versions of existing techniques.  
>
>Video compression is a perfect example of a search
>space where a particular local optimum has been
>extensively searched.  There will continue to be
>incremental improvements, but inevitably there will
>come a point of diminishing returns.  Without
>techniques that go further than the pixel/block
>paradigm, there is only so much improvement possible. 
>The next big leap in this area will come from a more
>'semantic' approach to video analysis, including
>things like scene description, object segmentation (as
>opposed to object recognition, though that may
>follow), reverse-3D extrapolation, and so on.  A
>possible interim approach might involve motion fields
>and 'texture-based' compression, that moves away from
>the rigid rectilinear block methods; but it is not
>clear that such an algorithm will compete effectively
>with existing optimized algorithms, especially
>concerning encoder complexity.  From a marketing
>perspective, if a new algorithm takes many orders of
>magnitude more complexity on compression, it better be
>a 3:1 or more improvement over the best existing
>methods.  Anything less will simply not be useful
>enough to achieve wide adoption.
>
>I'm not sure what the central goal of Tarkin is, or
>how it relates to VP3/Theora work; this is a
>logistical issue.  In any case, I think there is room
>for two independent threads -- one more research
>oriented, similar to what Tarkin is already doing, and
>another dedicated to practical improvements to the
>VP3/Theora codebase.  Obviously, anyone with an
>interest can be involved in both groups.  Eventually,
>if the research group comes up with something truly
>impressive, the VP3 group can take it up as a
>potential improvement in future releases.
>
>One thing I can say for sure after many years in this
>industry -- any algorithm that is not undergoing
>constant improvements is going to be dead in the water
>in a relatively short time.
>
>--- Matthias Fleischer
><[email protected]> wrote:
>  
>
>>>But we already have VP3 that basically does that.
>>>      
>>>
>>Besides, this 
>>    
>>
>>>seems hardly satisfying. I'm still all for aiming
>>>      
>>>
>>high, and 
>>    
>>
>>>replacing things in current encoders with similar
>>>      
>>>
>>non-patented 
>>    
>>
>>>algorithms isn't going to give us any substantial
>>>      
>>>
>>gains, if at all.
>>
>>But that's basically what vorbis did with audio,
>>right?
>>And if some of MPEGs well known weaknesses can be
>>ironed out on the way then that's a win.
>>Take for example those blocky MPEG artifacts -
>>everybody knows where they come from and how
>>they could be avoided - if you chose to get
>>incompatible
>>to existing MPEG hardware.
>>
>>
>>--- >8 ----
>>List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
>>Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
>>To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
>>'[email protected]'
>>containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. 
>>No subject is needed.
>>Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be
>>    
>>
>ignored/filtered.
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>http://health.yahoo.com
>
>--- >8 ----
>List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
>Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
>To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to '[email protected]'
>containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
>Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
>  
>


-- 
---------------------------
http://www.openhistory.net
  free the information
---------------------------




--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to '[email protected]'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.