UT Video Codec Suite — Lossless video compression, a thousand times more practical - Hardware & Software

Hello, fellow software dwellers! I have recently stumbled upon [u][b][url=http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=143624]a magnificent piece of software for Windows, which is called UT Codec Video Suite[/url][/b][/u]. At the time of writing, it is currently at the version 6.1.0. [release]Ut Video Codec Suite is a new free-software lossless video codec for Windows which Takeshi UMEZAWA has developed. It's implemented as a VCM codec (also called "VfW codec"). It can currently encode YUV422 and RGB sources. Takeshi, the developer, has only INTEL Conroe-based processer, then he can't test on AMD (especially Athlon and Turion), Core i7 and so on. I would seem that Ut Video Codec's performance depends on the CPU architectures. For example, known so far, Ut Video Codecs Suite mainly use SSE2, then Ut Video can't exercise the ability with such CPUs which aren't good at SSE2 as Athlon64 and P2/P3. [I]Note: I have an AMD Athlon X2 64 4200+ running with Windows 7 x64 and it works like a charm![/I] Not only the test results, but also the optimizations for the other CPUs are needed. If you can, please post the patches. Of course, the testing reports with the CPU name are welcome! [b]Its Implementation Goal (from readme file)[/b] -Realtime high definition capture with Core 2 Duo class CPU -Better compression ratio than Huffyuv -Near compression ratio as Lagarith, if possible [b]Achievement (from readme file)[/b] -Enough speed for realtime high definition capture because of multithreading and assembly language. -Usually better compression ratio than Huffyuv (Predict median) for progressive sources. -May worse compression ratio than Huffyuv for interlace sources whose height is greater than 288 pixels. -Usually worse compression ratio than Lagarith, but rarely better. [b]Minimum Requirement (from readme file)[/b] -OS: Windows XP or later -CPU: i686-compatible CPU with SSE2 support (e.g. Pentium 4 or later) -Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1 Redistributable Package (x86) is required. Installation of Ut Video Codec Suite will fail unless Redistributable Package is installed.[/release] [highlight]—— WHAT IS THAT?[/highlight] Well, if you work with video files, and desire to achieve high quality mastering, you want your files to be LOSSLESS. As in, no loss of information, which you would have with codecs such as H.264, MPEG-2, Theora... and, raw AVI files weigh TONS of gigabytes. It's quite insane, as a matter of fact. Let's take a concrete example — I am currently in the process of producing [url=http://ghosts.cafegaming.fr/]a 25-ish minute long machinima[/url], and I have limitations on the final size/bitrate, so having the best quality source material greatly matters. My usual workflow would have gone like this: [Source Engine] -> [Set of TGAs] -> [VirtualDub] -> [Raw AVI] -> [MY HARD DRIVE SUFFERS GREATLY AND EDITING IS SLOW] With that excellent lossless codec, things go that way instead: [Source Engine] -> [Set of TGAs] -> [VirtualDub] -> [UTVCS AVI] -> [MY HARD DRIVE IS RELIEVED FROM ITS HORRIBLE PAINS] [highlight]—— FACTS[/highlight] [LIST] [*]It generally (the newest version) compresses the files by a factor that is around five. As in, a RAW AVI that was 2gb would go around ~400mb. Consequences: as your hard drive / CPU has to read much less data, editing is made faster and less laggy (except if your hard drive still can't stand this decreased amount of data). [*]With my AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, playback of an HD file at 25fps takes approximately one third of my CPU. [*]It uses the AVI container, so it should theorically work with a wide range of applications (but it isn't recommended if the said app. doesn't support OpenDML 2.0 AVI files) [*]The (somewhat) increased CPU charge makes up for the decreased HDD charge. Playback rate is around 20% faster in Vegas Pro, and much, much faster without any filters on. [/LIST] [highlight]—— BENCHMARKS[/highlight] (from an old version, though) Armored Core 4 Opening (video game movie) [img]http://www.tobinaka.com/files/ut_test_sd1.jpg[/img] Live Action, 1080i [img]http://www.tobinaka.com/files/ut_test_hd1.jpg[/img] Live Action, 1080p [img]http://www.tobinaka.com/files/ut_test_hd2.jpg[/img] The compression ratio is quite better with newer versions, though. And, for my machinima footage (which doesn't have a shaky camera, noise, and a lot of movement, most of the time), it is significantly higher. A must have for video editing and high quality mastering!

So basically it can record stuff in HD but the videos aren't huge? I don't get it.

[QUOTE=war_man333;17598129]So basically it can record stuff in HD but the videos aren't huge? I don't get it.[/QUOTE] Exactly! And not only in HD! :v:

[QUOTE=war_man333;17598129]So basically it can record stuff in HD but the videos aren't huge? I don't get it.[/QUOTE] It's essentially better video compression without the huge file size.

Will this work with startmovie movie avi recording?

[QUOTE=-Ana;17598371]Will this work with startmovie movie avi recording?[/QUOTE] If it shows up on the codec list, then yes. Also Windows Live Movie Maker on windows 7 is freaking fast at converting videos and you can make it upload videos on youtube for you! It uses you're GPU to do the video converting.

[QUOTE=war_man333;17598129]So basically it can record stuff in HD but the videos aren't huge? I don't get it.[/QUOTE] It losslessly compresses video.

[QUOTE=-Ana;17598371]Will this work with startmovie movie avi recording?[/QUOTE] It does, but it is not recommended. Source's AVI system does not work with OpenDML 2.0 AVI, and then, some applications might not recognize the file. Instead, I render as a set of TGAs and let VirtualDub pack them up within an UTVCS AVI. [editline]02:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerBox;17598408]If it shows up on the codec list, then yes. Also Windows Live Movie Maker on windows 7 is freaking fast at converting videos and you can make it upload it on youtube for you! It uses you're GPU to do the video converting.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but for what we're talking about -- high quality video mastering -- it is pointless.

this seems rather unlikely. so theoretically i could reduce a 15gb 1080p movie to 1.5gb without loss of quality?

[QUOTE=User.;17599169]this seems rather unlikely. so theoretically i could reduce a 15gb 1080p movie to 1.5gb without loss of quality?[/QUOTE] that's pretty impossible... unless I'm missing some new revolutionary technology?

[QUOTE=User.;17599169]this seems rather unlikely. so theoretically i could reduce a 15gb 1080p movie to 1.5gb without loss of quality?[/QUOTE] Well, as I said, the compression factor greatly depends on your content. If it's "real-life" content, yeah, it won't compress as much. My footage comes directly from Source, and is as such noise-free.

I need a sample of such technology.

[QUOTE=Max of S2D;17597977]It generally compresses the files by a factor that is around ten. As in, a RAW AVI that was 2gb would go around ~200mb. Consequences: as your hard drive / CPU has to read much less data, editing is made faster and less laggy.[/QUOTE] Actually, your processor would be working harder with these files since it has to decompress them to play them.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;17600130]Actually, your processor would be working harder with these files since it has to decompress them to play them.[/QUOTE] That's why this codec is amazing; it doesn't have the fucking absolute best compression, but playing back an HD clip at 50fps only takes 40 percent of my CPU (which is an old AMD). Its decoding is surprisingly efficient.

[QUOTE=User.;17599169]this seems rather unlikely. so theoretically i could reduce a 15gb 1080p movie to 1.5gb without loss of quality?[/QUOTE] No. They're comparing this method of compression against raw uncompressed video. That 15GB movie you mentioned is probably already compressed with a lossy compression codec (even blurays have compressed video on them), so this codec won't make it any smaller, probably much larger. But 50GB is still very good compared to 500GB raw video for example (i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass right now, didn't bother to calculate raw video filesize). To all people that don't get what this thing is about: It's a method of compressing video [b]without any quality loss whatsoever.[/b]

It's like FLAC. Except for [i]video[/i].

[QUOTE=Neckbeard;17601544]It's like FLAC. Except for [i]video[/i].[/QUOTE] Yes.

itt lossless video compression is an amazing new technology that significantly reduces filesize sorry guys, lossless compression ratios are very low (approx 2:1) and will forever be.

[QUOTE=gngbng;17605968]lossless compression ratios are very low (approx 2:1) and will forever be.[/QUOTE] No. It all depends on your source, man. Think of PNG, it works much better than 2:1 when images have few colors in them.

[QUOTE=Max of S2D;17606118]No. It all depends on your source, man. Think of PNG, it works much better than 2:1 when images have few colors in them.[/QUOTE] game footage is not a few colors

[QUOTE=gngbng;17607652]game footage is not a few colors[/QUOTE] ever played Fallout 3?

[QUOTE=gngbng;17607652]game footage is not a few colors[/QUOTE] The colour palette of a game largely determines how many onscreen colours are rendered at once, you know. The larger the colour palette, the harder it pushes the system.

I recorded my video but I don't know any program I can open to view it. EDIT: nvm Windows media player opens it. It's great quality and all but in the end when you upload it on youtube they compress it anyways. I guess it's still better than recording at bitrate 10000 on XVID and then editing it and then compressing it to xvid again and then compressing it to h.264 and then h.263 on youtube.

[QUOTE=gngbng;17607652]game footage is not a few colors[/QUOTE] UT Video =/= PNG

Does anyone know any video game recorder that allows you to select your codec you want to record with?

[QUOTE=abcpea;17598435]It losslessly compresses video.[/QUOTE] That seems impossible at the levels this thing claims. Not even blu-ray movies are 100% lossless quality in compression. Raw movie files are massive. 1 minute = 2GB easily at HD resolution. There's no way to "compress" it without loosing SOME quality either in picture or framrate motion. The good news is that 99% of the time such compression methods are not really noticable to the human eye, which is why 1080p blu-ray picture quality looks as good as it does, even though it technically uses compressed video. [editline]05:52AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neckbeard;17601544]It's like FLAC. Except for [i]video[/i].[/QUOTE] Not really, Loss-less audio like FLAC still has a huge file-size, like ALL lossless media. It's still smaller than the raw data, but it's not anywhere close to what the OP is claiming (2gb magically turning into 200mb with no quality loss at all from the raw footage).

The PNG's of video, eh? 'Cept, without the whole, transparency thing.

[QUOTE=KorJax;17612745]Not really, Loss-less audio like FLAC still has a huge file-size, like ALL lossless media. It's still smaller than the raw data, but it's not anywhere close to what the OP is claiming (2gb magically turning into 200mb with no quality loss at all from the raw footage).[/QUOTE] I think I gotta correct the OP then. The footage that came out at ~200mb came from a ~2gb AVI... which was at 50fps, where as the output was at 25fps. So it's a 5:1 ratio :v: EDIT: the average ratio of this codec with real-life footage that isn't too noisy is 2,79-3,05:1 [editline]01:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Benjy355;17613026]The PNG's of video, eh? 'Cept, without the whole, transparency thing.[/QUOTE] It supports transparency. It is able to encode in 24-bit RGB (8-bit for each channel, like almost everywhere), and then in 32-bit RGBA (8 more bits for a transparency channel).

This looks like it's going to be something new and big

Can I have a comparison between this + RAW? I've used some lossless codecs before but they weren't great.