Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Usage

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11th March 2012, 08:22   #301  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by geminigod View Post
Subjunk, you mentioned previously that if the goal were slow motion vs. smooth motion, you would not use this setup. I was hoping you might expand on the particulars of why and what you would use instead. It seems like this could work well for both, and I am struggling to comprehend the practical difference.

For example, what you recommendation as best course of action for this hypothetical scenario? Goal: create smooth slow motion with 50% reduction in speed from a source video of 1080p @ 23.976fps with medium-fast motion in scene?
Thanks for the good question The practical difference is that at different speeds, different artifacts are more noticeable than others. It would be a good idea for InterFrame to have a slow motion preset or something but since I don't use it for that I don't think it will be added. However I know a lot of people do use it for slow motion and I've had good feedback about it, so while it could be further optimised for it, it should still be good

Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyWu View Post
RemoveGrain and MVTools2 do support YUY2 actually. For RemoveGrain, you have to convert the clip into planar YUY2 by applying Interleaved2Planar() first, then feed the converted clip to RemoveGrain() with "planar=true" set. For MVTools2, both interleaved and planar YUY2 are supported, but it's recommended to feed planar YUY2 to MVTools2 for the sake of faster processing. Like RemoveGrain, MVTools2 also has a "planar" parameter. The problem is InterFrame doesn't use MFlowFps but MSmoothFps(SVP Build), which doesn't have a "planar" parameter. I don't know whether MSmoothFps even support interleaved YUY2 or not. You may try it. If MSmoothFps supports interleaved YUY2, remember to apply Planar2Interleaved() to the converted clip before feeding to MSuper and MSmoothFps.
Thanks for the info
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2012, 22:19   #302  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyWu View Post
RemoveGrain and MVTools2 do support YUY2 actually. For RemoveGrain, you have to convert the clip into planar YUY2 by applying Interleaved2Planar() first, then feed the converted clip to RemoveGrain() with "planar=true" set. For MVTools2, both interleaved and planar YUY2 are supported, but it's recommended to feed planar YUY2 to MVTools2 for the sake of faster processing. Like RemoveGrain, MVTools2 also has a "planar" parameter. The problem is InterFrame doesn't use MFlowFps but MSmoothFps(SVP Build), which doesn't have a "planar" parameter. I don't know whether MSmoothFps even support interleaved YUY2 or not. You may try it. If MSmoothFps supports interleaved YUY2, remember to apply Planar2Interleaved() to the converted clip before feeding to MSuper and MSmoothFps.
Thanks- I already removed RemoveGrain and it does the trick- YUY2 seams to work fine even with SVP MVtools2. There is some speed penalty.
I tried convert to planar, but can't make it working- always have error about not supported color space in RemoveGrain. I don't think I know avisynth grammar well enough- it seams to be ingnored

Last edited by kolak; 11th March 2012 at 22:23.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 15:44   #303  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 6,630
Does anybody know how to increase motion search range or precision in order to eliminate "double leg effect"?


BTW. Source is 1080@25fps. I'm trying to achieve nice looking slow motion effect.

Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 20th March 2012 at 16:49.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 18:24   #304  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
Won't be easy as your source is only 25p.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 18:49   #305  |  Link
Didée
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,390
A nice example for a case where motionsearch failure is almost guaranteed (even though it looks so easy to our eyes). The bright area of concrete between the legs does exist only in one frame, but is virtually non-present in the other. The angle of the moving leg's borders is different. The concrete below the shoe (moving leg) is noticeably darker in the one frame compared to the other.

A hard time for a tool bearing the "motion search" title, when in fact it only searches for X*X blocks that are most similar to each other.
__________________
- We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood -

My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!)
Didée is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 20:02   #306  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
btw... svp released their new dll - speed is very good, but I can't get as good results as with old mvtools
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 22:30   #307  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
@Atak_Snajpera: I'm working on InterFrame 2.0 which will most likely fix that. It no longer uses MVTools2 and is much more advanced than the current 1.x versions.

@kolak: 25p is still easier to interpolate than most video which is at 23.976 By default InterFrame just doubles it to 50p.
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 23:29   #308  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
Yes- 23.976p is the worse, but 25p not much easier
Once you have 50i/60i and can deinterlace to 50/60p than conversion is much easier and works much better.

Is new version based on new svp flow dll?
Can't wait to try it
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 23:34   #309  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
Yeah it is I would have released it now, but the SVP DLLs don't work with AviSynth 2.6 yet so I'm waiting to see if we can fix that
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 23:36   #310  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
Yeah it is I would have released it now, but the SVP DLLs don't work with AviSynth 2.6 yet so I'm waiting to see if we can fix that
I'm happy with 2.5
Also found new dll way faster (maybe due to wrong settings) than old one? Is it true? I could not get good quality thought
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2012, 23:52   #311  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 6,630
kolak don't forget that 2.6 mt is less buggy than 2.5.8 mt version.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2012, 00:01   #312  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak View Post
Also found new dll way faster (maybe due to wrong settings) than old one? Is it true?
Yeah it is faster
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2012, 01:01   #313  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
kolak don't forget that 2.6 mt is less buggy than 2.5.8 mt version.
I had no major issues with interframe- even when using 6 cores.
QTGMC is a different story.

update- sorry- I think I'm using 2.6MT now- don't remember
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2012, 12:27   #314  |  Link
aegisofrime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
@Atak_Snajpera: I'm working on InterFrame 2.0 which will most likely fix that. It no longer uses MVTools2 and is much more advanced than the current 1.x versions.

@kolak: 25p is still easier to interpolate than most video which is at 23.976 By default InterFrame just doubles it to 50p.
Ooooo I can't wait! Been using Interframe since you first released it and still using it now.
aegisofrime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2012, 12:44   #315  |  Link
pbristow
Registered User
 
pbristow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 262
Didee summed up my thoughts (and spotted an issue I hadn't!). It's an excellent test case, though!


Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
@Atak_Snajpera: I'm working on InterFrame 2.0 which will most likely fix that. It no longer uses MVTools2 and is much more advanced than the current 1.x versions.
Ooh, this sounds exciting! Can you give us an idea what the new method is based on? Is it still block-matching based, but with added rotation/sheering/size-change/lighting-change detection? Or does it leap a few rungs further up the ladder of sophistication, with actual feature tracking (i.e. recognising the entire trouser leg as one "object", the shoe as another, and so on)...?
pbristow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2012, 19:21   #316  |  Link
LexSfX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 36
I made a little AVISynth script to use InterFrame 1.x easily with most videos. Here it is: https://github.com/AlexFolland/inter...visynth-script. I made it for personal use and am sharing it in case anyone else finds it useful. Any feedback of any kind is appreciated.
LexSfX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2012, 23:28   #317  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
InterFrame 1.14 is released. It is (hopefully) the final 1.x release.

I will release the first 2.0 beta soon, I'm still testing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbristow View Post
Ooh, this sounds exciting! Can you give us an idea what the new method is based on? Is it still block-matching based, but with added rotation/sheering/size-change/lighting-change detection? Or does it leap a few rungs further up the ladder of sophistication, with actual feature tracking (i.e. recognising the entire trouser leg as one "object", the shoe as another, and so on)...?
One of the cool new things is that backwards and forwards vectors influence eachother instead of being blind to eachother, which results in much more accuracy. Masking is also improved a lot as is scene-change detection.
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2012, 01:41   #318  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,324
Lest wait and see. I still have motion problems when watched on TV. There are moments when there is jerkiness for few frames.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2012, 04:16   #319  |  Link
LexSfX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 36
I haven't read much about 2.0. Will it support multiple threads, or will it still be limited to a single thread like 1.x is? "usegpu" helps performance a little bit, but I'd like to be able to get the full power of my CPU.
LexSfX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2012, 05:31   #320  |  Link
aegisofrime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
InterFrame 1.14 is released. It is (hopefully) the final 1.x release.

I will release the first 2.0 beta soon, I'm still testing it.

One of the cool new things is that backwards and forwards vectors influence eachother instead of being blind to eachother, which results in much more accuracy. Masking is also improved a lot as is scene-change detection.
Thank you for your continued hard work. I shall put my interpolation projects on hold until the release of 2.0 beta. Won't want to waste those CPU cycles
aegisofrime is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
48fps, 60fps, framedoubling, interframe, smooth motion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:46.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.