Deshaker by Gunnar Thalin - Page 8

fbs · 5th June 2008, 22:31

I changed it... and 1h has passed since then.. :P still waiting.. hehe what exactly is it doing in this 'deshaking...' stage?

0 0
8000 0
100 100
5 100

Undead Sega · 6th June 2008, 03:49

Quote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really see the point in doing what you're trying to do. Why would Deshaker be helped by adding interpolated frames?

the interpolated frames are there for a more deeper analyzes on how the camera moves AND the frames help fill the black borders to help give more image of the object than having less frames.

guth · 6th June 2008, 07:36

fbs, that sounds very strange. What are those numbers?
In the deshaking stage, it calculates how all of the frames should be transformed (but doesn't actually transform them).
If you set all max. correction limits to 100 and leave all smoothness values below 10000, it should be rather quick. How long is your clip?
If you want, you can send me your settings and logfile (maybe privately) and I'll look at it.

Undead Sega, I still don't understand. I would rather say that the interpolated frames probably would make it harder for Deshaker. And I really don't see how they would give more data to use in the borders. They don't cover any "real world data" that isn't already in the real frames.

Undead Sega · 6th June 2008, 20:22

it becomes harder because it has more frames to scan.

EDIT: nevermind.

fbs · 8th June 2008, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by guth

fbs, that sounds very strange. What are those numbers?
In the deshaking stage, it calculates how all of the frames should be transformed (but doesn't actually transform them).
If you set all max. correction limits to 100 and leave all smoothness values below 10000, it should be rather quick. How long is your clip?
If you want, you can send me your settings and logfile (maybe privately) and I'll look at it.

I'm using 0 for all smoothness except vertical which is 8000
I'm using 100 for all max corrections except vertical which is 5..
My vid was 1h40m long...

What I'm trying to do here is just correct some jumps my VCR produces in almost all frames.. look the logfile:
1663B 0.31 -15.40 0.006 0.99989
1664A -0.65 15.50 0.030 0.99973

15 pixels up then 15 down.. it's this way all over the tape..

With these settings I could correct it.. the problem is the speed :P I'll have to do this for like 20 tapes.. and only the 'Deshaking..' stage is taking 2-3 hours...

can you create an option for it to just work with vertical? both at 1st and 2nd pass? ;p I would gladly test it.. I can be a beta tester lol my msn is fbs [at] brasnet.org

guth · 8th June 2008, 18:54

It would probably be a lot faster if you split your clip into a few parts and processed them individually. The time needed for "deshaking..." unfortunately isn't linear with respect to the clip length. I'm still surprised it takes so long, though.
Again, if you want, you could send me the logfile and settings.

fbs · 15th June 2008, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by guth

It would probably be a lot faster if you split your clip into a few parts and processed them individually. The time needed for "deshaking..." unfortunately isn't linear with respect to the clip length. I'm still surprised it takes so long, though.
Again, if you want, you could send me the logfile and settings.

I could send it to you.. can you add me on msn? fbs [at] brasnet.org

I'd really like an optimized/upgraded version of your filter

guth · 15th June 2008, 17:34

Didn't you get my reply to your private message?
Please email me the files, to gunnart [at] guthspot.se.

scharfis_brain · 15th June 2008, 20:46

@Gunnar:

could you add a progress bar to the 'Deshaking...' popup-window?
Or even more: a counter for the estimated remaing time?

It would be very nice to be able to judge how long the calculation process will take...

guth · 16th June 2008, 19:04

Without going into details, I'm afraid it's not quite that simple. I don't really know how long it will take.

Undead Sega · 20th June 2008, 21:53

@ Gunnar, even though ow great this filter works for me and many people out there, is there any improvements u would want to consider or is there more work that can be done on your filter?

guth · 21st June 2008, 07:38

I'm always open for suggestions.
(But I'm a lazy man, so it would have to be something truly awesome!

)

Undead Sega · 21st June 2008, 12:20

Quote:

(But I'm a lazy man, so it would have to be something truly awesome! )

Now that doesnt suprise me, hahahaha, but i praise you for admiting it rather than someone else slowly trying to get it out from you :d

anyways, wat im meaning is, the way it is extrapolating to fill the borders, the current state of it, is there any thing more u can do about it? or did u just got it to a certain stage and thought "this looks good enough" ? Not being rude of course.

guth · 21st June 2008, 17:42

If you mean the extrapolation setting specifically, I think it's quite perfect looking, but very slow.
But if you mean using past and future frames to fill the borders, it could probably be improved a bit. It might happen some day, but then again it might not.

Undead Sega · 21st June 2008, 18:31

Now, with you saying that it could improve abit, what would that be exactly may i ask? If u dont mind telling me

guth · 21st June 2008, 19:06

Maybe doing some kind of local motion compensation that scharfis_brain talked about earlier. I don't know.
But it's kind of impossible to know what's outside a frame at the specific time that frame was shot. Guessing by looking at other frames will simply always look a bit strange under some circumstances.

Undead Sega · 21st June 2008, 19:56

i see, so if u were to impliment motion compensation, what difference could we probably see? as opposed to filling black borders with previous frames, or even with the combination.

also, i have read somewhere the super resolution is a very good algorithm for extrapolation.

guth · 21st June 2008, 20:19

I would obviously still have to take the image data from past and future frames (cause that's where the missing info is).
Seriously, you need to relax a little. I'm most probably not going to implement anything like that. Mostly because I don't think it would look that much better.
As for "super resolution"... believe me, no matter how awesome it is it will never be able to extrapolate a missing head from someone's body.

Undead Sega · 21st June 2008, 20:25

Quote:

As for "super resolution"... believe me, no matter how awesome it is it will never be able to extrapolate a missing head from someone's body.

oh im very aware of that, but i am just seeing if this filter can seriously be improved or become any better, its just i cannot find the right words at the moment to pass my exact words on. i know it can.

Dr.D · 28th September 2008, 17:30

No doubt deshaker is a great tool, big thanks to the author.
Filling borders done very smart too, great feature.
But, I believe, there are people (like me) who are crazy about any artefacts, what filled borders definitely are, regardless of how smart this done. So, I can sacrifize of resolution, cut off borders and have an artefacts free picture.
Here is the problem: how to know how much I should cut off? Now I do some not easy calculations based on 2nd pass parameters, using even trigonometry

, and still not sure that no artefacts left.
So, the following feature will be very appreciated. For 2nd pass I'd like to see a mode (let say "cut off borders") with only one option - resolution for output file, and let Deshaker choose optimal parameters for that.

15th June 2008, 20:46	#149 \| Link
scharfis_brain brainless Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 3,653	@Gunnar: could you add a progress bar to the 'Deshaking...' popup-window? Or even more: a counter for the estimated remaing time? It would be very nice to be able to judge how long the calculation process will take... __________________ Don't forget the 'c'! Don't PM me for technical support, please.

5th June 2008, 22:31	#141 \| Link
fbs Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 45	I changed it... and 1h has passed since then.. :P still waiting.. hehe what exactly is it doing in this 'deshaking...' stage? 0 0 8000 0 100 100 5 100

6th June 2008, 07:36	#143 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	fbs, that sounds very strange. What are those numbers? In the deshaking stage, it calculates how all of the frames should be transformed (but doesn't actually transform them). If you set all max. correction limits to 100 and leave all smoothness values below 10000, it should be rather quick. How long is your clip? If you want, you can send me your settings and logfile (maybe privately) and I'll look at it. Undead Sega, I still don't understand. I would rather say that the interpolated frames probably would make it harder for Deshaker. And I really don't see how they would give more data to use in the borders. They don't cover any "real world data" that isn't already in the real frames.

6th June 2008, 20:22	#144 \| Link
Undead Sega Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 713	it becomes harder because it has more frames to scan. EDIT: nevermind.

8th June 2008, 18:54	#146 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	It would probably be a lot faster if you split your clip into a few parts and processed them individually. The time needed for "deshaking..." unfortunately isn't linear with respect to the clip length. I'm still surprised it takes so long, though. Again, if you want, you could send me the logfile and settings.

15th June 2008, 17:34	#148 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	Didn't you get my reply to your private message? Please email me the files, to gunnart [at] guthspot.se.

16th June 2008, 19:04	#150 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	Without going into details, I'm afraid it's not quite that simple. I don't really know how long it will take.

20th June 2008, 21:53	#151 \| Link
Undead Sega Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 713	@ Gunnar, even though ow great this filter works for me and many people out there, is there any improvements u would want to consider or is there more work that can be done on your filter?

21st June 2008, 07:38	#152 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	I'm always open for suggestions. (But I'm a lazy man, so it would have to be something truly awesome! )

21st June 2008, 17:42	#154 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	If you mean the extrapolation setting specifically, I think it's quite perfect looking, but very slow. But if you mean using past and future frames to fill the borders, it could probably be improved a bit. It might happen some day, but then again it might not.

21st June 2008, 18:31	#155 \| Link
Undead Sega Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 713	Now, with you saying that it could improve abit, what would that be exactly may i ask? If u dont mind telling me

21st June 2008, 19:06	#156 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	Maybe doing some kind of local motion compensation that scharfis_brain talked about earlier. I don't know. But it's kind of impossible to know what's outside a frame at the specific time that frame was shot. Guessing by looking at other frames will simply always look a bit strange under some circumstances.

21st June 2008, 19:56	#157 \| Link
Undead Sega Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 713	i see, so if u were to impliment motion compensation, what difference could we probably see? as opposed to filling black borders with previous frames, or even with the combination. also, i have read somewhere the super resolution is a very good algorithm for extrapolation.

21st June 2008, 20:19	#158 \| Link
guth Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 157	I would obviously still have to take the image data from past and future frames (cause that's where the missing info is). Seriously, you need to relax a little. I'm most probably not going to implement anything like that. Mostly because I don't think it would look that much better. As for "super resolution"... believe me, no matter how awesome it is it will never be able to extrapolate a missing head from someone's body.

28th September 2008, 17:30	#160 \| Link
Dr.D Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 70	No doubt deshaker is a great tool, big thanks to the author. Filling borders done very smart too, great feature. But, I believe, there are people (like me) who are crazy about any artefacts, what filled borders definitely are, regardless of how smart this done. So, I can sacrifize of resolution, cut off borders and have an artefacts free picture. Here is the problem: how to know how much I should cut off? Now I do some not easy calculations based on 2nd pass parameters, using even trigonometry , and still not sure that no artefacts left. So, the following feature will be very appreciated. For 2nd pass I'd like to see a mode (let say "cut off borders") with only one option - resolution for output file, and let Deshaker choose optimal parameters for that.