cb05e77a425564c033a86c8c6dc4d1c1a563d60d
7
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 prosolis
|
ed353d24a9 |
Budget both profiles against both clocks: the CPU limit is the clock, not the profile
11_cpu_budget.py takes --machine. Clocks confirmed from MAME 0.277
x68k.cpp:1133/1194/1200, not recalled: x68000 AND x68ksupr are both
40_MHz_XTAL/4 = 10 MHz; only the XVI is faster at 33.33_MHz_XTAL/2.
sasi scsi
stock 10MHz 31% miss 42% miss
XVI 16.7MHz 0% miss 0% miss
sasi is the cheaper profile but it does not fit either at 10 MHz. The XVI
column is headroom, not a target: the profiles are an I/O-bandwidth axis and
say nothing about CPU, and the locked target CPU is a stock 10 MHz 68000 for
both of them. So both profiles have to fit the same 833,333-cycle budget, and
the cycle ceiling has to be enforced in the encoder regardless of which one
ships.
Model comparisons are now gated to the clock and framerate they were stated
at: quoting 24.5's 76.6% or the stock-machine 68000 timings against an XVI
budget compares a model to a measurement of a different machine.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6
|
||
|
prosolis
|
e1aa26bb57 |
The 68000 decoder draws pixel-exact frames, and does not fit
src/player/decode.s parses DLX1 and decodes straight into GVRAM. Verified pixel-exact over a 120-frame sequential run of the worst sustained window on the disc -- all four block modes, full temporal recursion, so the last frame is only right if all 120 were. In check.sh. It costs a mean of 81.7% of a 12fps frame budget, and 31% of frames exceed 100% (42% at scsi). CPU is now the binding constraint. FINDINGS 28. Three things that were believed and are not true: - The dual-display-path plan of FINDINGS 24.5/25.6 is incoherent. The compose path needs a RAM copy of the previous reconstruction; the direct path's selling point is that it keeps none. Mixing them shows stale pixels on 70 of 120 frames, worst frame 18.8% of the screen. Every coherent repair is dearer than not mixing, and 24.5's two figures were both copies with no decode in either, so there was never a crossover to find. One path ships, and the 96KB reference frame is gone. tools/analysis/10_pathmix_drift.py keeps the counterexample runnable; check.sh asserts it still reproduces. - The four block modes do not cost the same. V1 300, V4 448, RAW 400 cycles against the old model's flat 207.8. V4 is 25% of blocks and 50% of the cycles, and the mode decision charges it bytes it does not charge cycles for. tools/analysis/11_cpu_budget.py reproduces all four frames timed on the 68000 to within 1 point. Hand-derived timings agree to 0.5% on V1. - The container is big-endian but not aligned. Variable-length records laid end to end put frame 1's length field at an odd address, and move.l (a0)+ there is an address error: frame 0 decoded perfectly and then vectored into the IPL for 59 emulated seconds looking like a hang. Found by dumping PC, not by reading the source. Also: an all-V1 frame, the cheapest possible full redraw, is 110.5% of budget. No mode assignment fits a scene cut at 12fps. That one needs a decision, not a measurement. Next: charge cycles in the mode decision and bisect against 833,333 per frame, the way session 6 bisects lam against bytes -- but with no bucket, because a late frame cannot be banked. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6 |
||
|
prosolis
|
497f88b945 |
Rate control: rebuilt per-frame, wired in, and gated at zero drift
FINDINGS 26 stopped the session-5 rate controller before it shipped: it built a lam-ladder of independent whole-sequence encodes and picked frames off it, so SKIP blocks referenced reconstructions the decoder never saw -- 111 of 120 frames drifted. The fix is the structural one 26.1 said it had to be. vq_hybrid is now frame-drivable -- frame_ctx / decide / paint -- and encode() is a thin loop over it. Rate control drives the same three calls, bisects lam per frame under the leaky bucket, and feeds back the frame it actually emitted. The desync has no way to occur, and 09_ratectl_drift.py goes 111/120 -> 0/120. That test is now part of check.sh, which is ~2 min rather than ~40 s. Both overshoots on the worst sustained window are closed for under 1 dB, totals including audio: sasi 137.4 -> 109.5 KB/s (-0.60 dB), scsi 381.6 -> 280.0 KB/s (-0.91 dB). Zero frames hit the lam=800 cliff, so nothing was destroyed to get there. Rate control also makes the display path cheaper -- scsi's median drops 53.6% -> 47.1% -- because raising lam moves blocks to SKIP and V1. Two knobs measured rather than guessed. --rc-floor is worth 0.00 dB on that window and defaults to the profile lam, so rate control cannot regress content that already fits. --prefill defaults to 0 and is documented as a trap: it buys a permission to overshoot of exactly bucket/nframes, and on a 14-frame clip it disables the controller outright. FINDINGS 26.5 was wrong in both halves and 27.6 records it. _paint was not the bottleneck (14% of a frame, though vectorising it was still right at 17.1x) and the ladder was never "minutes" -- those were k-means in build(). What makes per-frame rate control affordable is that VQ.assign depends on neither lam nor prev, so it is cached one frame deep: a 12-step search over 120 frames costs 0.31 s against 49.1 s. Also caught: fixed-lam sasi was already 5% over target on 00020, the clip everyone called easy. Nothing noticed because the profile table quotes PSNR and not bitrate. check.sh: ALL GREEN. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6 |
||
|
prosolis
|
145753c0bf |
Handoff: rate control is next, and it is unsound as written
Session 5 handoff. The user has chosen rate control as the next session's work, so this reads ratectl.py properly before that session starts rather than discovering the problem mid-implementation. FINDINGS 26: encode_rate_controlled() is not sound. H.encode() is temporally recursive -- SKIP blocks copy the previous RECONSTRUCTION -- but rate control builds a ladder of independent whole-sequence encodes and picks each frame from whichever rung fits the budget. Frames then reference reconstructions the decoder never saw. Measured on the Singe window: 67 rung switches, 111 of 120 frames drift, worst frame 43.4% of pixels, reported PSNR overstated by 0.36 dB. It would have wired up cleanly and reported a plausible wrong answer. Two further defects in the same function: the lam ladder runs to 2e5, 250x past the FINDINGS 15 cliff, so a frame that only fits up there is destroyed rather than rate-controlled; and with 5 rungs only two are ever chosen, straddling the operating point by 7.5x. The docstring describes a per-frame binary search, which is the right design -- the implementation is a fixed ladder. The leaky bucket does work and should be kept: 109.1 KB/s against a 110 target. tools/analysis/09_ratectl_drift.py is the regression test and the acceptance criterion: it exits non-zero until zero frames drift. Also corrected the stale 38% blit figure in ratectl.py's profile commentary, which session 5 measured at 53.6% (FINDINGS 24), and recorded the pgrep -f self-kill trap again -- four times across three sessions now. check.sh ALL GREEN. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6 |
||
|
prosolis
|
e00264a058 |
Find the sustained action sequence: it breaks both profiles
The open risk since session 2 was "a sustained action sequence could still break the bitrate", with every clip measured so far being 1.2-1.7 s. Closed by measurement rather than by sampling clips by hand. 07_motion_survey.py scans a whole stream at 96x72 for the hottest sliding window of inter-frame difference. On 00223 the spread between the quietest and hottest sustained 10 s windows is 10.6x, which is the argument for not eyeballing it. Hottest is t=539.4s, the Singe endgame. There, with the fixed lam the CLI uses, sasi overshoots 110 -> 129.6 KB/s (+18%) and scsi 280 -> 373.8 KB/s (+34%). Rate control moves from "insurance, not a fix" to required, and is promoted above the full-disc survey. The bus is not broken -- 381.6 KB/s still fits the 488 KB/s figure -- so FINDINGS 21 survives, at 78% of the pipe instead of a comfortable margin. Three further corrections fall out: - The two largest streams on the disc are bonus material. 00216 is the feature with a burned-in commentary PiP; 00215 is the commentary. 00223 is the clean 9.4 min. A size-ranked survey would have encoded live action. - On hard content the 256-colour scene palette (31.33 dB) binds well before the X68000 display (40.81 dB); scsi is already within 0.51 dB of it. - FINDINGS 24.5's architecture question resolves to "both paths, chosen per frame": 30-53% of frames sit above the 70% crossover. Picking per frame costs a median 37.0% of the frame budget and caps at 53.6%. Reporting for this is wired into encode.py, which previously only printed a mean over all frames -- the one statistic that cannot answer a per-frame question. extract.py takes optional start/dur; 08_mode_map.py renders source | decoded | block-mode map to .webm. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6 |
||
|
prosolis
|
64cd1ffd72 |
Handoff: reconcile docs and tooling with the corrections made this session
Session 2 reversed several of its own conclusions. The docs are append-only, so a reader could land on a superseded section and act on it. This pass makes the repo internally consistent. Defects found and fixed in STATUS.md: - claimed "Hybrid VQ with k=1024: no" as the answer to the linework question, directly contradicting FINDINGS 14, which rejected k=1024. Both profiles are k=256. - malformed profile table (six column separators, five columns). - next-steps list had two items numbered 3 and listed the full-disc survey twice. - the disk-benchmark section still read CRITICAL-PATH with "if SCSI sustains >=800 KB/s, ship pixel-exact". That was written while the bandwidth figure was misread as 4 MB/s. At 4 Mbps pixel-exact needs 92-97% of the pipe and is not available, and the ring-buffer result means the design no longer hangs on the benchmark at all. Rewritten with what it IS still worth doing: confirming the 4 Mbps provenance, and confirming DMA is used rather than PIO. FINDINGS now carries supersession blockquotes on 5, 8, 11, 17 and 18 pointing at the sections that correct them. 18 is the dangerous one -- its peak-vs- sustained test is reversed by 21 -- so it is marked DO NOT ACT ON THIS SECTION while noting the per-frame data itself remains valid. profile_gen.py had the same problem in code: it defaulted to the superseded peak sizing and returned lam=25 where the docs say lam=10. The buffered test is now the default and peak sizing is behind --size-for-peak as a bound only. A tool that contradicts the findings is worse than no tool. Also preserves the five measurement scripts that produced this session's numbers as tools/analysis/05-09, following the session 1 precedent, and adds an "explicitly abandoned -- do not re-propose" list to STATUS covering entropy coding, k=1024 codebooks and flat 4x4 VQ. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6 |
||
|
reala-misaki
|
65112b9305 |
Session 1: hardware research, content measurement, codec decision, MAME harness
Verified GVRAM is one word-access per pixel in ALL color modes; chose 256-color 256x192 with movem.l bursts (page 1 sacrificed as double-buffer). Measured 8 scenes from the Blu-ray source: blit costs under 8% of the 12fps cycle budget, so I/O is the bottleneck, not CPU. Naive delta+RLE reaches only 3.2:1 (365 KB/s, 470MB) -> decision to use 4x4 vector quantization (~30 KB/s). "Shot on twos" assumption failed: the transfer has zero duplicate frames, so 12fps requires explicit decimation. Documents three false measurement results and their root causes (per-frame Floyd-Steinberg dithering, temporal denoise, exact-match dedupe on noisy source). MAME Lua injection harness works and is reusable for cycle-cost measurement; the IOCS _B_READ disk benchmark is blocked returning -1. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6 |