Vapoursynth

[ChaosKing]

It seems that r46 just copies the dll instead of linking it. A reinstall does not help? You could try the diagnose function in vsrepogui to see which plugin folder is used and if it shows any problems.

[Myrsloik]

Originally Posted by ChaosKing

It seems that r46 just copies the dll instead of linking it. A reinstall does not help? You could try the diagnose function in vsrepogui to see which plugin folder is used and if it shows any problems.

I stopped linking because:
1. You need elevated privileges to create links
2. The Python bits are now installed as a normal package using pip and it doesn't really do links either

[Myrsloik]

Originally Posted by Boulder

Is there any way to make the 64-bit R46 installation work properly? R45 also seems to create a symlink to that Python directory and installs a .pyd file there as well. Installation of R46 didn't do either of those things.

You should never have put things in the vapoursynth subdir. That was reserved for VS and nothing else. Make your own directory if you want to do things that way or simply let VSRepo stuff everything into the right place...

[Boulder]

Originally Posted by Myrsloik

You should never have put things in the vapoursynth subdir. That was reserved for VS and nothing else. Make your own directory if you want to do things that way or simply let VSRepo stuff everything into the right place...

I think that once it was required to put your .py files containing your own VS functions under site-packages to get them to autoload so you could just import them in your script. It has worked perfectly fine until R46, hence the confusion.

[Selur]

Anyone maintaining some build script for all the plugins for Linux (Debian based systems)?

[ChaosKing]

There was a ppa by djcj but it seem to be gone. See here (and sublinks) https://github.com/vapoursynth/vapoursynth/issues/455

EDIT his git repo: https://github.com/darealshinji/vapoursynth-plugins

[Selur]

@ChaosKing: I know about djcjs repository problem is it doesn't get updated any more (even the repository is 'archived'), I spoke with him and he's trying to make a 'build' script for all the filters, but I was wondering if somebody already did that and may be shared it with others.

---
For those interested in the issue: https://github.com/darealshinji/scri.../master/Hybrid (currently not 'finished' or 'well tested', but probably helpful)

[Selur]

Got an issue on Linux, regarding:

• VSFilter https://github.com/HomeOfVapourSynthEvolution/VSFilter
• VsFilterMod: https://github.com/sorayuki/VSFilterMod
• xy-VSFilter: https://github.com/HomeOfVapourSynthEvolution/

all of them seem to be Windows only. Does anyone know how and if theses can be compiled on Linux?

Cu Selur

[Myrsloik]

Originally Posted by Selur

Got an issue on Linux, regarding:

• VSFilter https://github.com/HomeOfVapourSynthEvolution/VSFilter
• VsFilterMod: https://github.com/sorayuki/VSFilterMod
• xy-VSFilter: https://github.com/HomeOfVapourSynthEvolution/

all of them seem to be Windows only. Does anyone know how and if theses can be compiled on Linux?

Cu Selur

VSFilter will always be windows only due to how it's coded. Use Subtext which is included or any other libass based alternative (if there is one).

[Selur]

okay, thanks for the info.

[lansing]

Is there a max speed limit set in vapoursynth? I'm testing out my new cpu with source filter like ffms2 on my dvd source, and the max speed I got is 1800 fps, while the same ffms2 in avisynth reaches 5200 fps.

[Myrsloik]

Originally Posted by lansing

Is there a max speed limit set in vapoursynth? I'm testing out my new cpu with source filter like ffms2 on my dvd source, and the max speed I got is 1800 fps, while the same ffms2 in avisynth reaches 5200 fps.

How did you test the speed?

[lansing]

Originally Posted by Myrsloik

How did you test the speed?

I open the script in vs editor and run the benchmark function, for avs+ I use avsmeter.

[Myrsloik]

Originally Posted by lansing

I open the script in vs editor and run the benchmark function, for avs+ I use avsmeter.

"vspipe script.vpy ." <- try that

If it's still slow lower the number of threads. You're effectively creating a worst possible scenario if you throw a lot of threads at only one source filter with no processing.

[lansing]

Originally Posted by Myrsloik

"vspipe script.vpy ." <- try that

If it's still slow lower the number of threads. You're effectively creating a worst possible scenario if you throw a lot of threads at only one source filter with no processing.

Using vspipe gives 4200 fps, though it is still 25% slower than avs+.

Then I ran another test on a longer sd video (2 hours), avs+ got 4700 fps and vs got 4400 fps, the difference is much closer, while both took less than 25% cpu usage.

[ChaosKing]

Originally Posted by HolyWu

Using different tools (avsmeter and vspipe) for performance comparison won't give you very precise result, since the mechanism for measuring the speed in each application is not the same. You can't really conclude your result unless the mechanism in each application is identical.

I can confirm it. It just tested via vspipe, vsedit, avsmeter and vdub2 with a 1h h264 DV res video.

vsedit is the "slowest" (always ~220fps slower). avsmeter always wins by a couple of sec (3-5sec) or 1586fps vs 1404fps in vspipe. This is also confirmed with a stopwatch in powershell.

In vdub2 on the other hand, avsiynth takes 58sec while vapoursynth is done in 54sec.

Conclusion: ffms2 is more or less equally fast in VS and AVS+ and the tools to measure the speed can have a significant impact on the speed and/or the results.

[Myrsloik]

Originally Posted by lansing

Using vspipe gives 4200 fps, though it is still 25% slower than avs+.

Then I ran another test on a longer sd video (2 hours), avs+ got 4700 fps and vs got 4400 fps, the difference is much closer, while both took less than 25% cpu usage.

Go back a few years and you'll see similar questions to this. Anyway...

The 25% cpu usage is because you reach the multithreading limit of ffmpeg. This is a very artificial experiment.

The remaining speed difference is due to differences in how memory allocation works. You're basically benchmarking the respective memory pools in the most artificial way possible. This is an extremely artificial experiment.

Actually I think the ffmpeg binary would win this competition if you just find the right options. I'm generally not interested in benchmarks like these since people rarely even get the options right. See my first answer.

Go benchmark something meaningful next time.

[lansing]

Something weird I just noticed after more testings, in the beginning of my benchmarks, task manager shows all drives at 0% read/write activity while the cpu was running. But some 30 seconds in, the drive that contains the source video began to have some read activities for no reason. And this had effectively bottlenecked my speed. In my script here, it was running at 100+ fps with 100% cpu load for the first 30 seconds, then it had dropped to 70 fps when the drive started to have some 40% reading.

clip = core.ffms2.Source(file)
clip = core.dfttest.DFTTest(clip)

I have tested on both vs and avs+, same behavior.

Can anyone reproduce it?

[ChaosKing]

Originally Posted by lansing

Something weird I just noticed after more testings, in the beginning of my benchmarks, task manager shows all drives at 0% read/write activity while the cpu was running. But some 30 seconds in, the drive that contains the source video began to have some read activities for no reason. And this had effectively bottlenecked my speed. In my script here, it was running at 100+ fps with 100% cpu load for the first 30 seconds, then it had dropped to 70 fps when the drive started to have some 40% reading.

clip = core.ffms2.Source(file)
clip = core.dfttest.DFTTest(clip)

I have tested on both vs and avs+, same behavior.

Can anyone reproduce it?

Sound like (os) caching...
Need more info: ram size, file size, ssd or hdd?

[lansing]

Originally Posted by ChaosKing

Sound like (os) caching...
Need more info: ram size, file size, ssd or hdd?

ram is 32GB, source video is 6.5G and I tested on both 5400rpm and 7200rpm hdd.