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 2nd June 2015, 05:52   #1  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
InpaintFunc.avs - Different result depending on Avisynth version

Has anybody noticed, and/or knows the reason why, InpaintFunc seems to work better when using Avisynth+, as opposed to Avisynth 2.6? At least in DeBlend mode. I'm not sure about the other modes yet.

I'm using Avisynth 2.6 RC3 at the moment but I'm pretty sure when I was using 2.6 RC1 it was exactly the same. Here's three screenshots to demonstrate the difference. All I'm doing is switching the Avisynth version MeGUI uses. The script is exactly the same, with the exception of not loading the ImageSeq plugin for Avisynth 2.6 as it's a built-in function.

Quote:
#LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MeGUI\tools\avs\plugins\ImageSeq.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MeGUI\tools\ffms\ffms2.dll")
FFVideoSource("E:\test.mkv", cachefile="D:\test.ffindex", fpsnum=25, fpsden=1, threads=1)
InpaintFunc(mask="D:\test.bmp", loc="86,4,-482,-276", mode="Deblend", speed=20, ppmode=3, pp=75)
No Logo removal


InpaintFunc & Avisynth 2.6


InpaintFunc & Avisynth+
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 10:04   #2  |  Link
Groucho2004
►◄
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 4,461
Post a sample clip so we can reproduce this.
__________________
Groucho's Avisynth Stuff
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 11:31   #3  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Perhaps Avisynth+ has had some mod to work around this problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessS View Post
Levels Bug ?

I assume, but could be wrong that the original Levels code used a min/max
limiting of the output, which at some later date was converted to using
PixelClip(), this in my opinion is a BUG, and certainly does not lay easy
with the original programmers intent.

I quote from the manual entry on the levels filter:-

"However, the input and output parameters can be larger than 255."

It seems to have been omitted that they could be less than zero too.

It is my assumption from the quote (that I take, to be from the original
Levels programmer), that the intent was to have no limits on either the
input nor output arguments to the levels filter, this was and is, quite a
sensible and flexible stance to take. Unfortunately, using PixelClip() has
almost completely negated the intent. As it now stands, PixelClip has a
slightly larger array (both +ve and -ve) than the normal 0-255 range to
presumably cope with slightly out of range results. BUT, as the quote above
points out, in levels, they could be deliberately far outside of the 0-255
range, much further than PixelClip was designed to 'contain'. PixelClip is
presumably designed to cope with eg rounding errors. In Levels, Arguments
outside the 0-255 range are not errors, only the eventual result should be
limited to the 0-255 range by a a simple min/max solution.

I say, put back what was I presume the original min/max limiting.

Unfortunately, there is at least one script that will fail badly if
the Levels code is amended, InPaintFunc.avs by Reuf Toc, for AVSInpaint.dll,
relies on the above problem. Reuf Toc, uses as output args 0-900,
and relies on PixelClip() out of PixelClip array, to produce all zero's
for those out of array elements. As it happens, it works quite well
as there seem to be a lot of zeros following the pixel clip array in
current versions of Avisynth, but only due to code link order.
I have a ripped out version of Levels source, only difference being that
it always outputs the LUT tables as text files (for use in comparing
Levels output with my Levels Grapher thing), and this alternate version of
the exact same code produces completely different results.

I say that PixelClip() in Levels is a BUG, put back min/max.

Perhaps I am wrong.

What Say YOU.

EDIT: the 0-900 thing in InPaintFunc.avs only affects the
postprocessing of edge of the logo.
Perhaps related, I dont know (InPaintFunc post processing should not really work properley at all now).

EDIT: The suggested mod to use min/max instead of PixelClip was adopted in Avisynth v2.6, perhaps AVS+ did something different.
EDIT: Maybe AVS+ even put back PixelClip, not realizing that it is a bug.

EDIT: Where the bug reliant code lives in InPaintFunc (about the script middle)
Code:
# crop of the part of the image where is the logo + mask creation
# ================================================================


cropped     = clp.crop(a,b,c,d)
in          = (RGB32 == true) ? cropped : cropped.converttoRGB24()
in2         = (spd   == true) ? in.SelectRangeEvery (every=20, length=speed) : in

Masque      = imagesource(mask,start=0,end=1).converttoRGB32
Masque      = Masque.crop(a,b,c,d).levels(127,1,128,0,255)
Masque      = Masque.mask(Masque)

BlendedMask = Masque.DirtyBlur().levels(0,1,75,0,255)
BlendedMask = BlendedMask.mask(BlendedMask)
RepairMask  = BlendedMask.levels(0,1,255,0,pp)
RepairEdge  = Masque.DirtyBlur().levels(0,1,255,0,900)
RepairEdge  = RepairEdge.DirtyBlur().levels(0,1,75,0,pp)
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 2nd June 2015 at 12:32.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 13:38   #4  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Here a test script [EDIT: RGB Levels Input on left half, output on right half frame]
Code:
RESULT=0

GSCript("""
    for(n=0,255) {
        current_frame = n          # Pretend we are in runtime, ie make AverageLuma work EDIT: should be 0 but dont matter
        color = (n * 256 + n) * 256 + n
        C=BlankClip(Length=1,Color=color,width=320)
        CR=C.Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900)
        CRV = CR.ShowGreen(pixel_type="YV12").AverageLuma
        CR=CR.SUBTITLE(String(CRV,"%.1f"),align=5)
        C=C.SUBTITLE(String(n),align=5)
        C=StackHorizontal(C,CR)
        RESULT = (RESULT.IsClip) ? RESULT + C : C  
    }
""")

RESULT
Should saturate to 255 at input 73 and stay saturated.
Pixelclip bugged Levels will flip from white(255) to black(0) at input = 164 under eg v2.58

Does AVS+ produce identical output to AVS 26 ?

EDIT:
InPaintFunc requires something that produces same as bugged Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900) for RGB post processing,
eg set all input range 164 and above to 0 before call to Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900) [mt lut stuff Planar only, what else would work ?].
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 3rd June 2015 at 01:47.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 13:56   #5  |  Link
Wilbert
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,336
I don't understand your post (#3). Are you saying that levels(0,1,255,0,900) gives different results for AviSynth and AviSynth+?

I also don't understand your comments about PixelClip versus min/max which IanB later changed (in 2011). See http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ight=PixelClip
PixelClip was only applied for RGB clips and only on the end result (not on the input parameters). I see that IanB corrected it to use min/max (in 2011), but i don't see why it should have made a difference except for the end values larger than the upperbound 255+320.

edit: did "Array out of bounds territory." mean that it would return 0?

edit2: AviSynth+ uses the same code as far as i can see:

Code:
map[i] = clamp(int(p+0.5), 0, 255);  // and 16,235) when coring=true

template<typename T>
T clamp(T n, T min, T max)
{
    n = n > max ? max : n;
    return n < min ? min : n;
}

Last edited by Wilbert; 2nd June 2015 at 14:14.
Wilbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 14:08   #6  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Wilbert,see the test script in post 4, try on both v2.58 and v2.6 to see difference.
Quote:
edit: did "Array out of bounds territory." mean that it would return 0?
Yes, also see the edit.

Quote:
Are you saying that levels(0,1,255,0,900) gives different results for AviSynth and AviSynth+?
Dont know, I was asking that of Hello Hello.

I'll install AVS+ and see.
Will post an edit here in a few moments.
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 14:14   #7  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Just tested, AVS+ produces non bugged results, ie same as Avisynth v2.6 standard, so above PixelClip bug is nothing to do with the OP problem
(But InPaintFunc could still do with a resolution to correct the PixelClip fixed problem).
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 15:52   #8  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
Wow, thanks guys, especially StainlessS. You've overwhelmed me a bit. I'll have to re-read the posts and regroup. I might need to get back with some more info as required tomorrow, but for the moment I can at least confirm that levels(0,1,255,0,900) produces the same result using both Avisynth 2.6 and Avisynth+.

I'm working on a sample at the moment. I'll try to upload it tonight but it's getting late, so if it takes too much messing about...... tomorrow.

Thanks.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 16:11   #9  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Here a fix for v2.6 (and AVS+ v2.6) to make the InPaintFunc.avs mask work as in v2.58 prior to Levels bug fix.
Not related to the OP problem but there is a problem with the current InPaintFunc script in v2.6, perhaps only where different post processing mode.

Fix, replace Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900) with call to IPF_Mask() [req mask tools]
Code:
Function IPF_Mask(clip c) {
    c.ShowGreen(pixel_type="YV12").Mt_Lut(Mt_Polish("(x >= 164) ? 0 : x"))
    Return MergeRGB(Last,Last,Last).Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900)
}

RESULT=0

GSCript("""
    for(n=0,255) {
        current_frame = n          # Pretend we are in runtime, ie make AverageLuma work EDIT: should be 0 but dont matter
        color = (n * 256 + n) * 256 + n
        C=BlankClip(Length=1,Color=color,width=320)
#        CR=C.Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900)
        CR=C.IPF_Mask()
        CRV = CR.ShowGreen(pixel_type="YV12").AverageLuma
        CR=CR.SUBTITLE(String(CRV,"%.1f"),align=5)
        C=C.SUBTITLE(String(n),align=5)
        C=StackHorizontal(C,CR)
        RESULT = (RESULT.IsClip) ? RESULT + C : C  
    }
""")

RESULT
Above shows the same erroneous (but InPaintFunc required) behaviour as in eg v2.58 Levels using PixelClip.

EDIT: IPF_Mask returns RGB32 as supplied to Levels by Masque.DirtyBlur in original script
Code:
RepairEdge  = Masque.DirtyBlur().levels(0,1,255,0,900)
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 3rd June 2015 at 01:48.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 16:33   #10  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
Okay..... a sample turned out to be pretty easy to come up with. It's part of an old AVI from a TV capture.

First, how it looks using my PC. The top pic is MeGUI displaying the script whilst using the portable version of Avisynth+ that comes with it, the bottom pic is MPC-HC displaying the same script via the "installed" Avisynth 2.6.0.6



Edit: I Added an image of the original video without logo removal.



To help check I'm not using some odd version of InpaintFunc or AVSInpaint I've included all the relevant files in the zip file below.

AVSInpaint.avsi is just the script I have in the Avisynth plugins folder to "autoload" AVSInpaint.dll
There's around 40 seconds of the video from an AVI that I split off and remuxed as MKV with the bitmap I'm using for logo removal and the script for encoding etc.
I'll be interested to learn if this is a "my PC" problem or if it's typical. I'm using XP if it matters.

Cheers.

InpaintFunc sample files.zip
(I kept it fun-size. It's only about 4MB)

Last edited by hello_hello; 2nd June 2015 at 16:57.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 16:48   #11  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
I'll return tomorrow to re-read your posts StainlessS. It's pretty late here, I'm tired and it's close to being over my head anyway, so I'll return when my brain's working.

Cheers.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 17:03   #12  |  Link
Groucho2004
►◄
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
Okay..... a sample turned out to be pretty easy to come up with. It's part of an old AVI from a TV capture.

First, how it looks using my PC. The top pic is MeGUI displaying the script whilst using the portable version of Avisynth+ that comes with it, the bottom pic is MPC-HC displaying the same script via the "installed" Avisynth 2.6.0.6
You must be using AVS+ r1576 which gives me the same result as in your top pic.
AVS+ r1825 and AVS 2.6 official show the problem as in your second pic.

Edit: All official Avisynth versions down to 2.5.7 seem to have the problem.
__________________
Groucho's Avisynth Stuff

Last edited by Groucho2004; 2nd June 2015 at 17:31.
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 17:13   #13  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
The Avisynth+ dll in MeGUI's folder shows version 2.6.0.5 via the right click properties menu.

It seems you're right though...... there's only one Avisynth+ update file inside MeGUI's updates folder and it's labelled avisynthplus-r1576.7z, and Avisynth 2.6.0.5 can be found within.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 17:56   #14  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Hello, Hello_Hello

Tested with v2.58 (will not load ImageSeq under v2.58 so comment out)

The v2.6 standard result looks pretty much the same as in v2.58, kinda just what I expected as the AVS+ frames look weird to me
for InPaintFunc output, dont know what its doing but AVS+ is the odd one and not v2.6 standard (despite AVS+ looking perhaps better).

EDIT: Did not see Groucho's edit.
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 2nd June 2015 at 18:01.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 18:10   #15  |  Link
Groucho2004
►◄
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessS View Post
AVS+ is the odd one and not v2.6 standard (despite AVS+ looking perhaps better).
To be more specific: AVS+ r1576 and r1689 show the behaviour as in pic 1. All versions after these and all official AVS versions look like pic 2.
__________________
Groucho's Avisynth Stuff
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2015, 18:51   #16  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Hello, Hello_Hello

Suggest you touch up your mask, the crud revealed in v2.6 standard is due to the mask not completely covering the logo
as can be seen when Show=true (shimmering logo will not be removed, need to cover halos, compression artifacts etc around logo) ie
Code:
InpaintFunc(mask="D:\_HELLO_HELLO\test.bmp", loc="84,4,-480,-276", mode="Deblend", speed=20, ppmode=3, pp=75,Reset=True,Show=True)
Use Reset=True so as to redo the logo detection and mask re-creation otherwise you may be viewing earlier results.
There is another problem in the script which I gave a fix for but was never incorporated and that is something to do
with re-saving the masks (otherwise sometimes not written out to file).
Here is the fix post:- http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...09#post1443309

Here both the fixes combined
Code:
# crop of the part of the image where is the logo + mask creation
# ================================================================


cropped     = clp.crop(a,b,c,d)
in          = (RGB32 == true) ? cropped : cropped.converttoRGB24()
in2         = (spd   == true) ? in.SelectRangeEvery (every=20, length=speed) : in

Masque      = imagesource(mask,start=0,end=1).converttoRGB32
Masque      = Masque.crop(a,b,c,d).levels(127,1,128,0,255)
Masque      = Masque.mask(Masque)

BlendedMask = Masque.DirtyBlur().levels(0,1,75,0,255)
BlendedMask = BlendedMask.mask(BlendedMask)
RepairMask  = BlendedMask.levels(0,1,255,0,pp)
#RepairEdge  = Masque.DirtyBlur().levels(0,1,255,0,900)                 # ssS fix (removed)
RepairEdge  = Masque.DirtyBlur().IPF_Mask()                             # ssS fix (added)
RepairEdge  = RepairEdge.DirtyBlur().levels(0,1,75,0,pp)


# check for an existing computed mask. If it doesn't exist or if reset = true --> computation
# ===========================================================================================


ID          = mask + "InpaintFunc" + string(a) + string(b) + string(c) + string(d) + string(speed)

Logo        = (reset == true) ? eval("""

              in2.analyzelogo(Masque).trim(0,-1).converttoRGB32
              imagewriter(ID,0,1,"ebmp")
              
              """) : eval("""

              try               
              {imagesource(ID + "%06d.ebmp",0,0)}
              catch (dummy) {
                  show=true                                                # ssS fix (added)
                  in2.analyzelogo(Masque).trim(0,-1).converttoRGB32
                  imagewriter(ID,0,1,"ebmp")
              }""")
and append to end of script
Code:
Function IPF_Mask(clip c) { # ssS fix (added), Correction for fixed Levels bug. Returns RGB32
    c.ShowGreen(pixel_type="YV12").Mt_Lut(Mt_Polish("(x >= 164) ? 0 : x"))
    Return MergeRGB(Last,Last,Last).Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900)
}
EDIT: Mask fix requires mask tools v2.
EDIT: You can remove the Reset=True arg when Show=True fix is added to InPaintFunc script.
With Show=True fix, if bmp is bad/not existent will auto show the masks (forcing bmp to be written), just close this
and re-open, 2nd time will use the newly written bmp. (A better solution than Show=True would use v2.6 Echo somewhere).
By the way, I think the script makes global changes to clip (not just logo area) might want to chop out area of interest and
process just that and omit two colorspace conversions to boot (for most of the frame).

EDIT: posted by Wilbert
Quote:
i don't see why it should have made a difference except for the end values larger than the upperbound 255+320.
The IPF_Mask thing, fixes levels output 255+320 before it happens with Mt_Lut(Mt_Polish("(x >= 164) ? 0 : x"),
after levels it would be too late to do anything, Levels(0,1.0,255,0,900) with input 164 must result in 255+320 (have not checked this),
I got the 164 from the bugged behaviour of the posted GScript script under v2.58 (where levels uses PixelClip rather than min/max).
End result is that IPF_Mask() produces the same as v2.58 Levels using PixelClip which InPaintFunc relies upon to produce 'hollowed out' edge masks.
I think that it does not matter at all in the posted Hello_Hello example, but only because the mask is too thin to 'hollow out', it is also too thin
(needs dilation) to produce a good de-logo'd result.
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 3rd June 2015 at 08:21.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2015, 11:46   #17  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
Firstly,
StainlessS.... you mentioned touching up the mask, but I'm not sure what to touch up. What I'm seeing when I open the mask bitmap in Irfanview and increase it to around 8x it's original size is this:



Which looks nothing like the mask when show=true is being used:



Given the mask is a bitmap, could it be some sort of subsampling or resizing issue when it's converted?
Although no...... it looks the same when MeGUI is using Avisynth+ and show=true is included in the script.

When using show=true should the top right picture be an accurate representation of the end result?
Because when using Avisynth 2.6, frame number 386 looks like this:


But the actual script output is this:


StainlessS,
All of the above was after applying your suggested changes to the script but I gather they weren't expected to fix the problem. I thought I'd mention it though.

I did wonder if Avisynth+ 2.6.0.5 being the "odd one out", the output from the other Avisynth versions would be what's "expected" while the Avisynth+ output is not, even though it tends to remove more logo.

Having not used InpaintFunc until recently, but only with Avisynth+, I'd assumed it's output was normal until I noticed the difference. Could someone tell me.......
Avisynth+ and Avisynth 2.6 tend to be opposite ends of the scale to some extend. Avisynth+ removes the logo completely but the surrounding area (in this case a rough square slightly larger than the logo) tends to look "processed". Mostly you need to view the video in motion to see it, but it varies from almost impossible to detect to being not much better than typical "ugly blob" logo removal.
On the other hand there's generally not the same "processed block" when using Avisynth 2.6, but at the same time it doesn't remove all of the logo.
Which of those would be considered more "typical" in DeBlend mode?

That's been the extent of my further experimenting to date. I haven't discovered anything at all, although maybe provided some useful information?..... but whether the Avisynth 2.6 output should be considered correct or if it's the Avisynth+ output that's right, is it likely we'll ever discover why they're different?

Cheers.

Last edited by hello_hello; 3rd June 2015 at 12:22.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2015, 12:15   #18  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
I tried again with a new mask. Something "overdone" compared to what I previously assumed would be needed. The Avisynth result did improve and only the ghost of logos past remained, but it's obvious due to the visible processed "square" area when using Avisynth+ that somehow, in some way, it must mean there's more/different processing going on when Avisynth+ 2.6.0.5 is used. I wonder why?



Avisynth 2.6.0.6


Avisynth+ 2.6.0.5



Now.... how to achieve an output that's a compromise between those two.....

Oh.... I did notice a little difference between the behaviour of the original script and the StainlessS modded version.
When opening a script with the "original" InpaintFunc included and no ebmp file has been created, there's a waiting period and the script eventually opens outputting the de-logoed video. The StainlessS version opens as though show=true was included in the script and to see the de-logoed output it needs to be previewed a second time.

Was that intentional StainlessS?

Thanks!

Last edited by hello_hello; 3rd June 2015 at 12:24.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2015, 13:41   #19  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 7,212
Mobile currently.
Yes intentional and mentioned in edit.
I think the avs+ result is due to it eg not using the mask during post process repair (or something like that, is may be doing temporal soften on whole rectangular area, this might be fault in overlay with mask or similar in avs +)

Edit: the mask in top middle will show shimmering where the mask is too thin, due to eg compression artefacts that are bigger than the logo but affected by it.
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 3rd June 2015 at 13:51.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2015, 15:33   #20  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessS View Post
Mobile currently.
Yes intentional and mentioned in edit.
Sorry I missed that.
Is it safe to change "show" to false here? I did so without any apparent side effects so far.

Quote:
try
{imagesource(ID + "%06d.ebmp",0,0)}
catch (dummy) {
show=false # ssS fix (added)
in2.analyzelogo(Masque).trim(0,-1).converttoRGB32
imagewriter(ID,0,1,"ebmp")
}""")
I'm trying to save a bit of time without confusing MeGUI in the process, so I've been creating the scripts and loading them into MeGUI's job queue with the InpaintFunc part commented out and no ebmp file created. That way I don't have to wait for the analyses while trying to load each one, then when they're all in the job queue I uncomment InpaintFunc in each script.

I initially thought I'd end up with a bunch of "show=true" encodes but for reasons I don't understand that doesn't happen, however somewhere along the way MeGUI still sees the resolution of the script with show=true active and thinks it needs to compensate for a change in resolution by getting all anamorphic..... or something like that..... and the upshot of it is the encoded version comes out looking something like this:



With show=false it's business as usual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessS View Post
I think the avs+ result is due to it eg not using the mask during post process repair (or something like that, is may be doing temporal soften on whole rectangular area, this might be fault in overlay with mask or similar in avs +)
I'll switch to Avisth 2.6 now and go with the assumption that's how the world is supposed to work and adjust the masks I create to suit. It definitely looks better without the "processed block"

Thanks for all the help everyone. I've got a better idea as to what's going on now.

PS StainlessS,
Could I get you to assume I'm Avisynth stupid and elaborate on what you meant by the following. Being Avisynth stupid I'm not sure I understand what you meant. Do you mean to somehow do this when encoding and removing the logo?
Thanks.

"By the way, I think the script makes global changes to clip (not just logo area) might want to chop out area of interest and
process just that and omit two colorspace conversions to boot (for most of the frame)."

Last edited by hello_hello; 3rd June 2015 at 15:37.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.