H.265 vs VP9

They are competing next generation video compression formats that claim to be twice as efficient as H.264, the current industry standard. They will be crucial in getting 4K ‘Ultra HD’ content to our televisions, PCs and tablets over the next few years. They also halve the file size of 720p and 1080p content making it far easier to download or stream HD video over slow connections.
Performance compression at following IEEE paper
http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf


Some things to note from this video:
• Google is planning to introduce VP9 to WebRTC by year-end
• VP9 already accounts for 60% of all YouTube videos delivered
• 100 hours of video gets uploaded to YouTube every minute
This shows the ubiquity of VP9 in both encoding and decoding, and how this is used outside of labs and research centers in real, live production systems today.
Competition from H.265, on the other hand, is rather late to the party. The dominant MPEG camp is huddled around H.264 these days, with spotty support of H.265 here and there. The only references I could find for H.265 include a Netflix announcement of planned support of H.264 in 4K resolutions and many codec vendors coming up with H.265 support.

H.265 and VP9 support 8K content as well and with physical media on the wane, this makes them quite frankly the future of television and video, which is why they're so important.

H.265 and VP9 support 8K content as well and with physical media on the wane, this makes them quite frankly the future of television and video, which is why they're so important.
H.265 was originally developed as the ‘HEVC’ (High Efficiency Video Coding) format jointly by the Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) and the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG). It was approved as the official successor to H.264 in April 2013. Like H.264, the codec must be licenced with hardware manufacturers and software developers paying a fee.

By contrast VP9 is open source and royalty free. It was developed by Google as a successor to VP8, the moderately successful alternative to H.264. During its development VP9 was dubbed ‘NGOV’ (Next Gen Open Video) and Google has already integrated support into the Chrome browser and YouTube.

How do they work?

By doing the opposite of what you might expect. While 4K video increases picture quality by making individual pixels smaller, effectively what H.265 does is make them bigger to reduce the bitrate (and therefore file size). It then performs a vast array of processing tricks on the video as it is played to get the detail back.



For context H.264 could grab a 16x16 ‘macroblock’ of pixels and perform nine ‘intra-prediction directions’ – aka educated guesses – that allowed the pixels to be rebuilt within each block. H.265 can grab 64x64 ‘superblocks’ and perform 35 infra-prediction directions to rebuild them. Like H.264, H.265 varies the size of blocks it takes. For example, it would take much smaller blocks (down to 4x4 pixels) around detailed areas like facial features and much bigger blocks of the sky or a relatively plain background.
VP9 is similar on the surface. It can also take 64x64 superblocks, but unlike H.265 these don’t need to be square so it can sample 64x32 or 4x8 blocks for greater efficiency. On the flip side it only has 10 prediction modes to rebuild them. Cynics argue VP9 changes H.265 just enough for it to avoid copyright infringement.

Needless to say both standards require more computational power than H.264 and VP8 for all this rebuilding. But given the increase in computing power since those formats were launched in 2003 and 2008 respectively, this isn’t a great problem.

Which is better?

The first thing to say is we are greatly simplifying these formats, but – despite similar file sizes - initial reports suggest H.265 has higher image quality while VP9 is more reliable for streaming.

The greater prediction modes in H.265 are what give it the edge visually, while VP9 enforces stricter rules on decoding which appears to make streams more consistent and reliable. This would make sense given the focus of the standards’ respective creators, though officially both sides dispute there is any downside to their format.

Who is supporting what?

H.265 versus VP9 is a little like HDMI versus DisplayPort in that the latter’s royalty free approach should give it the edge, but the former’s ubiquitous legacy means it has widespread industry support. Previously this made H.264 an easy winner over VP8.

This time around things are closer. Google used CES 2014 to show VP9 has support from LG, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, Philips, Sharp, ARM, Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Realtek Semiconductor and Mozilla. As mentioned, Google has also built VP9 support into its Chrome browser and YouTube.

The flip side is all these companies have also backed H.265 and even Google will support it in Chrome and hasn’t ruled out YouTube support. In fact, this led to an amusing quote from Francisco Varela, YouTube global head of platform partnerships, that "We are not announcing that we will not support HEVC."

Consequently most companies look like they will support both formats, much like you’d be hard pressed to find an audio player that doesn’t support both MP3 and AAC.

SDN, NFV Deployments,Cloud, BigData in Top Technology trends for 2014

Top Technology trends we should watch for in early 2014.  Network Function Virtualization (NFV) and Software Defined Networking will see an increase in terms of deployments, while Cloud-based (new tern open-cloud)services will continue to rise and Big Data will experience exponential growth.

Big Values in 2014

1) Network Functions Virtualization and Software-Defined "Everything" Will Gain Momentum: Globally, and specifically in Asia-Pacific and Japan, exploration of Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) and software-defined technologies (network, virtualization, data center, storage and infrastructure) will evolve from being simply "research," and enterprises -- particularly in the service provider space -- will begin to roll out production deployments. 

2) Trimming the so called heavily loaded Data Centers and Cloud Architectures: Technology disruptions are forcing us to fundamentally rethink how networks should be architectured, designed, deployed and operated in data centers. Networks are more critical than ever to deliver applications, and we believe fabrics will play a pivotal role to accelerate this transformation -- with drastic improvements in network efficiency, resource utilization and performance.

3) Open/Personal Clouds Loom Large: According to Gartner, the push for more personal cloud technologies will lead to a shift toward services and away from devices.  

4) The Internet Revolution Continues Unabated: Robert Metcalfe, the inventor of Ethernet, states that the power of a network increases by the square of the number of nodes connected to it. 

5) Big Data Becomes Too Big to Handle: BYOD and the explosion of data (especially video content) are causing many new challenges as the amount of data becomes too big to handle in terms of getting value from it and in defining a strategy. 

6) Gamification in the enterprise

Mobile app developers and Web developers have already incorporated game mechanic elements into their experiences. For instance, billion dollar real-time traffic app Waze has a strong gamification element. Users receive points, recognition and rewards for proper usage. Expect the same in the enterprise in 2014. Springshot, a West Coast-based startup, is developing a mobile gamification solution for the aviation industry. Companies like Spotify have already introduced gamification to replace annual reviews. Instead, employees use a Web application that provides weekly and daily summaries of their accomplishments, acknowledgements, and overall productivity.

7) Real-time mobile targeting

With the continual evolution of smartphones, 2014 will see mobile technology take new forms as it becomes a central tool for business’ marketing and advertising strategies

Vine vs. Instagram?

What’s better and where?

While Vine was the first video platform to boom, Instagram launched their own video capabilities just a few months after Vine came to market. Not only did Instagram’s launch of video functionality place them as a direct competitor to Vine, but they one-upped Vine by introducing 15 second video, compared to Vine’s measly 6 seconds.

One of the big questions in the social media world since Instagram video came out is, which better; Vine or Instagram? The answer to this question lies within the personal of the user. There are pros and cons to each platform and each of these pros and cons lead to the ultimate decision that the user will make. If this is a question that still bounces around in your mind, here’s a list of pros and cons to ease your mind a bit:

Why Vine?

§  A six second time limit forces a Vine user to think outside the box and be as  innovative as possible

§  Vine constantly loops the video, so if you miss something you can watch it again.

§  Twitter and Vine are linked together, so when you post something on Vine it automatically goes to your Twitter page, too.

Why Instagram?

§  Instagram has a longer recording time (15 seconds) which allows more time to film a typical TV spot.

§  The app also offers more creativity  offers more creativity with filters and editing features that enhance the display of the video.

§  Instagram also allows to share on not just Facebook and Twitter, but also Tumblr, Flickr and Foursquare.

Not So Good About Vine:

§  Vine lacks editing tools and style filters.

§  You can’t pull prerecorded videos from camera roll.

§  Vine’s user numbers have decreased 2.9 million to 1.35 million, a 50 percent decrease.

Troubles With Instagram:

§  Instagram doesn’t have the looping option for videos.

§  Just like Vine, Instagram doesn’t support pulling prerecorded videos from camera roll.

§  Because of the 15 second time limit, there are complaints of the video taking too long to load.

With these pros and cons in mind, a user now has a better chance of making a decision that is in line with their personal preference. Whatever the choice, with practice and proper use, you’ll become a video pro in no time!

Description in more detail:

Description in more detail

Here’s a look at some of the biggest ways the apps diverge:

Length: The biggest distinguishing factor between these two services is the amount of time they allow for clips. Instagram offers users 15 seconds to Vine’s six — two-and-a-half times the video fun. The longer time-limit is supposed to make it easier for more people to shoot videos, since you don’t have to ration your time quite as jealously as you do with Vine.

More time is not always a good thing. If you have something really fun to film, then it gives you a lot of room to run. But if the video’s boring, fifteen seconds can seem like a lifetime. (At least a waste of time.)

But asking people to take more time to watch your content means there could actually be a higher bar for what makes a good video on Instagram — or at least a lower tolerance threshold for subpar work.

Looping: Vine’s looping is one of its most unique features, tapping into the .gif-sharing culture and providing a good platform for animation. You wouldn’t want videos much longer than six seconds to play on repeat, so it makes sense that Instagram didn’t follow suit with a similar format.

Still, there’s something charming about the loop. The best Vines actually improve on their second or third rewatch, and there’s certainly a thoughtful crowd out there that takes pride in making clips that flow well from beginning to end.

Instagram videos, on the other hand, require users to be thoughtful in a more traditional way — basically, making sure that what they’re posting is worth the time to watch it.

 Shooting: Shooting on the two apps is similar, but not identical. On Vine, you can hold your finger down anywhere on the screen to start recording. With Instagram, you have to hit a dedicated button on the screen. It’s big and red, but it’s still not quite as easy to use when shooting.

The trade-off, however, is that Instagram lets you tap-to-focus in the midst of your shooting, opening up the intriguing possibility of switching the action from background to foreground and vice-versa.

Instagram also includes a nifty feature that lets you stabilize your video after you shoot it — again, a feature that makes sense when dealing with longer clips.

Editing: Instagram brings two new additions to the editing table that Vine doesn’t have — the ability to delete and the option to add one of its signature filters to your videos.

Being able to delete is a good touch, particularly if Instagram is looking for a more thoughtful phone video crowd. And filters can cover up a multitude of lighting and shooting sins, even if they can’t make your video any more entertaining.

Not to be outdone, Vine may be looking to deal with bloopers in the future as well. Ahead of Facebook’s announcement, Vine released a short video of a phone running a version of Vine that apparently can save drafts — a hint of what may be coming in the future.

Convenience: Instagram’s video comes as a mode within the existing app, while Vine stands alone. It’s a smart move for Instagram, given that it means they already have a video app with 130 million monthly users.

That could be the result of the lesson Facebook learned from its self-destructing Poke video app, a separate app that has failed to pick up many users. On the other hand, having a stand-alone app means that you’re fewer taps away from making a quick video in the moment.

Although Instagram and Vine are comparable in many ways (how to shoot video, the ability to add a text description using hashtags, and the ability to upload and share videos across multiple social media platforms), there are a number of differences between the two platforms:

                                                

Network latency & packet-loss simulation and-bandwidth on MAC

Sometimes while testing you may want to be able to simulate network latency, or packet loss, or low bandwidth. I have done this with Linux and tc/netem as well as with Shunra on Windows.

It turns out that Mac OSX includes ‘dummynet’ from FreeBSD which has the capability to do this WAN simulation.

Here is a quick example:

• Inject 250ms latency and 10% packet loss on connections between my workstation and my development web server (10.0.0.1)
• Simulate maximum bandwidth of 1Mbps

# Create 2 pipes and assigned traffic to and from our webserver to each:
$ sudo  ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to 10.0.0.1
$ sudo  ipfw add pipe 2 ip from 10.0.0.1 to any


# Configure the pipes we just created:
$ sudo ipfw pipe 1 config delay 250ms bw 1Mbit/s plr 0.1
$ sudo ipfw pipe 2 config delay 250ms bw 1Mbit/s plr 0.1

A quick test:

$ ping 10.0.0.1
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=515.939 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=519.864 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=521.785 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 3
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=524.461 ms


Disable:

$sudo ipfw list |grep pipe
  01900 pipe 1 ip from any to 10.13.1.133 out
  02000 pipe 2 ip from 10.13.1.133 to any in
$ sudo ipfw delete 01900
$ sudo ipfw delete 02000


# or, flush all ipfw rules, not just our pipes
$ sudo ipfw -q flush

Notice that the round-trip on the ping is ~500ms.  That is because we applied a 250ms latency to both pipes, incoming and outgoing traffic.
Our example was very simple, but you can get quite complex since “pipes” are applied to traffic using standard ipfw firewall rules.  For example, you could specify different latency based on port, host, network, etc.
Packet loss is configured with the “plr” command.  Valid values are 0 - 1.  In our example above we used 0.1 which equals 10% packetloss.
This is a very handy way for developers on Mac’s to test their applications in a variety of network environments.