>From memory usage point of view approach #2 is better. And by improving the
storage based on min-max cu sizes we will be optimizing the memory usage
for other combinations too. Approach #2 will optimize the output file size
too.
min cu max cu qg size resolution cutree offsets buf size (bytes) l
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:34 PM Srikanth Kurapati <
srikanth.kurap...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>
> Adding to my reply above.
>
> [AM] Why MAX_NUM_CU_GEOMS combinations?
>
> [KS] Will optimize storage based on min-cu-size configuration.
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Srikanth Kurapati <
>
Adding to my reply above.
[AM] Why MAX_NUM_CU_GEOMS combinations?
[KS] Will optimize storage based on min-cu-size configuration.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Srikanth Kurapati <
srikanth.kurap...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
>
> [AM] Can't we share lowres cutree stats generated at qg size gr
[AM] Can't we share lowres cutree stats generated at qg size granularity?
Why MAX_NUM_CU_GEOMS combinations?
[KS] If we share like that then we will have to calculate the dqp per cu at
analysis phase just like save encode and we will not get the savings in cpu
cycles there. Currently we are storin
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:08 PM Srikanth Kurapati <
srikanth.kurap...@multicorewareinc.com> wrote:
> From d516d0564888e154d88d89320302725d87bfab78 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Srikanth Kurapati
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 17:00:08 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] fix: corrects output mismatch for cutree
>From d516d0564888e154d88d89320302725d87bfab78 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Srikanth Kurapati
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 17:00:08 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] fix: corrects output mismatch for cutree enabled analysis
save/load enodes with reuse-levels in between 1 to 10 for similar encoder
settings.
--
