Microsoft Patents Accelerated Video Encoding using GPU

[HardOCP News]

A patent filed by Microsoft almost six years ago for “accelerated video encoding using a GPU” was granted yesterday by the United States Patent Office. Thanks to everyone that sent this one in.

A video encoding system uses both a central processing unit (CPU) and a graphics processing unit (GPU) to perform video encoding. The system implements a technique that enables the GPU to perform motion estimation for video encoding. The technique allows the GPU to perform a motion estimation process in parallel with the video encoding process performed by the CPU. The performance of video encoding using such a system is greatly accelerated as compared to encoding using just the CPU. Also, data related to motion estimation is arranged and provided to the GPU in a way that utilizes the capabilities of the GPU. Data about video frames may be collocated to enable multiple channels of the GPU to process tasks in parallel. The depth buffer of the GPU may be used to consolidate repeated calculations and searching tasks during the motion estimation process.

 

[NickJames]

So what does that mean for CUDA?

 

[skinnydaddy]

WTF? Ummm Ok. So Nvidia and ATI freak out in five, four, three.........

 

[IRSmurf]

Sounds like there will no longer be free GPGPU video encoding software since everyone is going to have to pay Microsoft for every copy downloaded.

Ugh.

 

[SonicTron]

How did MSFT get a patent on hardware technology applications when it doesn't actually make said hardware, and in such a broad manner when both nvidia and ATI have had their own specialized hardware and algorithms for years?

 

[Ocellaris]

How did MSFT get a patent on hardware technology applications when it doesn't actually make said hardware, and in such a broad manner when both nvidia and ATI have had their own specialized hardware and algorithms for years?

Because the stupid US Patent system lets people patent ideas and "what this does" instead of "how it does it".

 

[anthrex]

This is complete crap!

 

[Methadras]

This was filed 6 years ago and now the USPO has issued a patent for it. What was the technology 6 years ago?

 

[Bahamut]

About time a real patent gets issued for a good reason instead of all the crap copyright/patent/trademark bullshit Apple has been up to lately.

Congrats, Microsoft... now put the technology to good use, dammit, and give us encoders that actually get the job done with great quality instead of the ones that currently exist and end up being really fast at creating horrible looking encodings.

 

[Bahamut]

As an example of what I mean, this just got Apple another silly patent about an hour ago:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/

I mean really... now you can patent people pinching their fingers together? Yes, that's called being facetious, folks, - it's meant as a joke...

Even so, it does get quite ridiculous that you can patent/copyright/trademark words and phrases, just blows my mind that such things are possible in this craptastic fucked up world of ours.

And it's just getting worse by the millisecond.

 

[Azhar]

How did MSFT get a patent on hardware technology applications when it doesn't actually make said hardware, and in such a broad manner when both nvidia and ATI have had their own specialized hardware and algorithms for years?

ATI and nVidia pretty much listens to Microsoft anyways before making their cards. Microsoft owns and controls DirectX after all. I don't think ATI and nVidia can take a piss without Microsoft's permission anyways.

 

[Stone Cold]

Another example of the absurdity of software patents. 95% of software patents cover what is immediately obvious. We have a computer with a powerful, programmable GPU that sits mostly idle when not paying games. Hmmm, how can we speed of this compute-intensive encoder?

The real effort isn't coming up with the idea that gets a patent, it's coming up with the code to implement it. That is why software should have copyright protection, but not patent protection.

 

[Semantics]

This was filed 6 years ago and now the USPO has issued a patent for it. What was the technology 6 years ago?

lucky them considering the 7 year backlog it only took them 6 years! So many things wrong with the US patient system one of which is just how long and how much money it takes with patent lawers etc to get something under a patent.

 

[Unknown-One]

Congrats, Microsoft... now put the technology to good use, dammit, and give us encoders that actually get the job done with great quality instead of the ones that currently exist and end up being really fast at creating horrible looking encodings.

+1

GPU encoding is a fantastic concept, but we need some decent encoders. All of the hurrent GPU accelerated h.264 encoders only do baseline (low quality) encoding rather than high profile (high quality) encoding.

 

[Stone Cold]

Sounds like there will no longer be free GPGPU video encoding software since everyone is going to have to pay Microsoft for every copy downloaded.

Any video encoding software probably already violates a dozen patents. What's one more?

 

[Semantics]

Just about every codec violates patents you wanna see a slap down if google ever uses VP8 on youtube (which for many reasons is not as superior as H264) they would get slapped with so many patent infringements by the same people who hold patents for H264. I mean just look at microsofts attempt releasing VC-1 claiming to be patent free and within a few months got slapped with lawsuits.

 

[Methadras]

lucky them considering the 7 year backlog it only took them 6 years! So many things wrong with the US patient system one of which is just how long and how much money it takes with patent lawers etc to get something under a patent.

Oh, you don't have to tell me about the patent system. I have filed patents and co-patents my patent attorney fees are astronomical to deal with.

 

[mdburkey]

Based on the relatively "late" date this patent was submitted, the number of individuals and/or companies with prior art on this patent should be rather huge.

First off, the patent is somewhat vague in the definition of GPU and does not specifically state that it has to be a VGA board. Based on my reading of it almost any secondary graphics processor capable of handling motion estimation would qualify.

One product that would definitely qualify that is VERY important would be the Chromatic Research MPact! series of parts.

It was a combined all-in-one VGA capable GPU with a rather hefty VLIW programming engine under the hood. It was capable of doing VGA, 3D acceleration (poor), DVD decode, and a 56K SoftModem all in software -- so it definitely qualifies as a GPU.

Additionally, I have personally seen a demo (circa 1997) of a prototype H.263 POTS video phone implementation for the board -- with the H.263 encode and modem layer running simultaneously on the MPact chip itself. We were also told that an MPEG1 encode routine was also available but I cannot remember whether or not we actually were shown it. Actually, I still have an old Mpact 1 based board around here somewhere and I think I actually had a copy of the H.263 demo at one point (and may still -- somewhere).

So, being able to do H.263 video encode on a secondary GPU would pretty definitively show that Chromatic Research had prior art with respect to the patent.

The reason this is important is that ATI purchased what was left of Chromatic Research in or around 1999.

Which means that ATI/AMD has prior art on this patent -- which might give them a financial edge over Nvidia unless Nvidia can prove prior art as well.

 

[gaspah]

I've used a few gpu-based video encoders and whilst the speed was fantastic the results in terms of quality were nothing short of total disappointment. I hope this issue is addressed and moreso hope you're not forced to use wmv which struggles on most pcs when talking full hd.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

 

[gaspah]

unless Nvidia can prove prior art as well.

the codec i've used was running through cuda it may have even been a h264 codec written by nvidia but i'm not sure on that. this was nearly 2 years ago when i last used it. i dunno if this counts to what you're talking about as i'm not sure exactly about the legal terminology.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

 

[majortom1981]

You guys do realise that patents are on how microsoft uses the gpu to decode video right? Not on the general idea.

 

[kirtar]

You guys do realise that patents are on how microsoft uses the gpu to decode video right? Not on the general idea.

First of all, the patent is about video encoding and not decoding

A video encoding system uses both a central processing unit (CPU) and a graphics processing unit (GPU) to perform video encoding

From what I could tell from the summary, it's a fairly specific method; however, it is also one of the best methods iirc, since motion estimation is one of the more intensive parts of encoding (especially if you choose exhaustive for some reason).

 

[phide]

About time a real patent gets issued for a good reason instead of all the crap copyright/patent/trademark bullshit Apple has been up to lately.

Oh, absolutely. If Microsoft benefits, then the issuance of the patent is for good reason, regardless of what the patent is. If anyone else benefits, however — especially Apple — the patent system is grossly flawed and is in dire need of repair.

 

[srangara]

Another example of the absurdity of software patents. 95% of software patents cover what is immediately obvious. We have a computer with a powerful, programmable GPU that sits mostly idle when not paying games. Hmmm, how can we speed of this compute-intensive encoder?

The real effort isn't coming up with the idea that gets a patent, it's coming up with the code to implement it. That is why software should have copyright protection, but not patent protection.

I would agree with this. I would be surprised if MSFT developers don't already have a proof of concept coded. However, that shouldn't preclude a third-party from developing their own DirectX plug-in to do the same thing.

Unfortunately, a patent does.

 

[heatlesssun]

Oh, absolutely. If Microsoft benefits, then the issuance of the patent is for good reason, regardless of what the patent is. If anyone else benefits, however — especially Apple — the patent system is grossly flawed and is in dire need of repair.

Apple, Microsoft, IBM, fill in the name of your favorite company to bash get granted dubious patents these days. Patent law is simply broken and I don't blame Microsoft or Apple or IBM or Google or anyone using the law to their advantage.

Spoken like a true Microsoft zealot huh?

 

[Cerulean]

*submits patent for CPU video encoding*

I will be rich! Hah hah hahhh...

Does software rendering fall under "video" "encoding"?

 

[TechLarry]

You actually think that is going to happen?

Microsoft is so deep in bed with Media producers, they smell each others farts. The last thing the XXAA's want is easier/better encoding.

Microsoft acts at their whim to ensure themselves a good position in the media world.

Empowering consumers to quickly encode video (and come on folks, we all know what that means here), well, I just don't see it happening.

About time a real patent gets issued for a good reason instead of all the crap copyright/patent/trademark bullshit Apple has been up to lately.

Congrats, Microsoft... now put the technology to good use, dammit, and give us encoders that actually get the job done with great quality instead of the ones that currently exist and end up being really fast at creating horrible looking encodings.

 

[TechLarry]

You guys do realise that patents are on how microsoft uses the gpu to decode video right? Not on the general idea.

That would be worse. Software DVD players have been doing it for over a decade.

 

[Arcygenical]

Oh, absolutely. If Microsoft benefits, then the issuance of the patent is for good reason, regardless of what the patent is. If anyone else benefits, however — especially Apple — the patent system is grossly flawed and is in dire need of repair.

I was thinking this to. Lulz.

I don't even like Apple.

 

[mdburkey]

the codec i've used was running through cuda it may have even been a h264 codec written by nvidia but i'm not sure on that. this was nearly 2 years ago when i last used it. i dunno if this counts to what you're talking about as i'm not sure exactly about the legal terminology.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

For prior art to be valid, they would have to be able to demonstrate they were using the techniques covered in the patent prior to the patent having been FILED.

As anything dealing with CUDA is pretty much guaranteed to be later than 2004, Nvidia needs to be looking at much older code and/or projects.

ATI can pretty much cover all their bases with technology they would have inherited with their purchase of Chromatic Research (since it was in the late 90's). Additionally, their early All-in-Wonder cards TV Record capability offloaded some of the Mpeg encode/decode to the ATI chips as well -- and I think that motion estimation was part of what was offloaded.

 

[BloodyIron]

ATI and nVidia pretty much listens to Microsoft anyways before making their cards. Microsoft owns and controls DirectX after all. I don't think ATI and nVidia can take a piss without Microsoft's permission anyways.

OpenCL is not DirectX dependant. By the way.