readme

Video4Linux_test.rar 接視訊的範例程式

Colour ConVerT: conversion routines from YUV to RGB colour space and back
Version: 0.3 (24-10-2004) (C) 2001-2002 Nemosoft Unv.  [e-mail]

This code is covered by the GPL; please see the file COPYING or
http://www.gnu.org/ for more details.



This package contains a number of colour conversion routines; these are
often needed in image processing, compression, video conferencing, etc.

There are 3 variants of the code available:
  ccvt_c1.c	Simple, yet readable C code
  ccvt_c2.c	More optimized, but slightly obfuscated C code
  ccvt_mmx.S	Hand-crafted assembly code for x86 processors

To use this code in your program, run the ./configure script (or pack it
with your own program and include it in your own ./configure), run 'make'
and link in the resulting libccvt.a into your program. The script tries to
be smart and compile assembly routines when available for your platform
(most notably: x86 processors with MMX).



The functions have a strict naming convention and take the same amount of
parameters; for example:

   void ccvt_420p_bgr32(int width, int height, void *src, void *dst);

'width' and 'height' are in pixels; the src and dst pointers are input
and output respectively. Any YUV planar formats are assumed to be
contiguous, i.e. the U and V data follow the Y data immediately in one
memory block.

Width and Height must be a multiple of 2.




Showing & benchmarking

If you run
	$ make bench
	$ make show
this will build a total of 6 programs, 3 benchmarking and 3 verification
tools (in case MMX is not available, you will end up with only 4 programs).

The verification tool is a small Qt program that runs one of the 3 variants
of the conversion code and shows the result. Any errors can thus be seen
immediately.

The benchmarking tool runs the conversion routine a number of times and
measures the time, in clock-ticks; though not exactly accurate, it gives a
good indication of the time spent in the program; also, it's independant of
the load on the system.

Here are some averaged results:

bench_c1	360
bench_c2	206
bench_mmx	160

I was a little disappointed at the relatively low speed-up of the MMX
routine... I had expected it to be 3 times faster than bench_c1, with an
average number of clock-ticks of 125... In the MMX routines 4 pixels are
processed at a time, so that should increase throughput quite a bit, minus
some overhead to get the data in and out of the MMX registers.

So, I did some testing as to see what takes most time, and found the results
quite interesting. I compiled the MMX assembly with various sections turned
on or off, ran the benchmark a few times and averaged the numbers. The
section numbers are in the assembly source code.

The times are in ticks for 500 iterations of the ccvt_420p_bgr32() function,
on a Celeron 400. You will note that the numbers don't always add up
linearily; this is due to the various caching and branch-prediction
mechanism used in the processor.

No sections (just the loop overhead)			5
 Section A1: load & prepare UV values			40
 Section A2: multiply UV values with factors		38
  Section A1 & A2					74
 Section B1: load gray values and add UV values		47
 Section B2: store 2 * 8 bytes from MMX to memory	67 (!)
  Section B1 & B2					88
All sections						170

What was most surprising was when just section B2 was compiled in: the
function then comprises of only a tight loop where data is transfered from
MMX to memory; this takes a relatively long time, and appearantly memory
access is the bottleneck here. However, if you add up the times of Section
A1 & A2, Section B1 & B2 and the overhead, you get close to the total time.
Still, it seems that transfering to memory is a costly operation (I estimate
that the two 'movq' instructions from section B2 take up 25% of the total
execution time!) Unfortunately there is not much we can do about that.

However, once data is in an MMX register it is processed very fast. Adding,
doing logical operations and even multiplication perform very quickly. In
addition it has these 'saturated' functions, which prevent range overflow of
data and saves costly compare and assign operators.

Or maybe my assembly programming just sucks :)