HomemadeCheesecake | 67 points
(Pass: name of the sub, no /r/)
Currently has
Will add more as I encode it.
Cheers! :)
Has anyone tried SVP (Smooth Video Project)? Watching movies without this app would be hell for me :(
Thanks for pointing me to this. Awesome piece of software work, it's an amazing difference.
[-] ishadow2013 | 3 points
It's great, but you need a heavy machine to run it. My computer runs intel hd graphics, and struggles when it comes to 1080p rips.
It renders in real time, so ya.
[-] nikhcomicfan | 2 points
Thank you for opening my eyes to such a great software! Just watched Doctor Strange in it and it was beautiful beyond words... :O
[-] JasonLee917 | 2 points
The free version does not support VLC media player... :(
[-] HomemadeCheesecake | 10 points
Use MPC-HC, far better than VLC.
[-] JasonLee917 | 3 points
How is it better? Just curious because I only used VLC before
You can customize MPC-HC to use different filters while you cant do that with VLC. If you want to view 4K movies with HDR then MPC is a better choice.
[-] Sir_Gunner | 1 points
Hmmm, seems more of a preference thing, I prefer to see my films how the director intended it to be.
Not sure what configuring MPC has to do with viewing movies the way the director intended. But like you said it is a preference.
[-] Sir_Gunner | 1 points
You're talking about adding filters and viewing films in HDR, these are all things that a viewer is adding to a film that wasn't not intended by the director is what I'm saying.
I don't prefer to watch my films that way, I just wanna watch the finished product that has gone through the post-production stage that was approved by the director. And watch it in it's purest form, that's all I'm getting at.
Filters in MPC are used to take advantage of hardware on a PC. It changes nothing to the film.
[-] Sir_Gunner | 1 points
So what exactly do some of the filters do if they don't change anything to the film? Because I'm slightly interested in trying it out.
[-] OkayDragon | 1 points
MPC loads way faster for me than VLC.
[-] Raging_Flames | 1 points
I hear people say this but nobody ever backs it up. How is it better?
It isn't. People just love using all types of convoluted filter settings in MPC, which really barely have a measurable, let alone visible effect on the medium you're watching. Almost all players from PotPlayer to VLC will give you a high quality, smooth playback for almost all filetypes with their internal stuff. This whole scene around filters is for self-proclaimed videophiles, who want to have everything in exactly the perfect setting by manually messing around for an hour or more when the end result then looks barely or not at all better.
[-] jodorowsthesky | 2 points
mpc+svp+denoise/sharpen complex 2/edge sharpen shaders=win
[-] yogesh_calm | 1 points
For someone who hasn't heard of it, Can you introduce it to me, for what and how it can be used?
It uses your GPU to interpolate frame between two other frames. It's doing it by calculating where the pixels were before and where are on the next frame, so it tries to make an image with pixels in-between those two positions. The more hi-res video and cranked up settings - the more it uses GPU. You can see the demo on their homepage - especially for anime. Effect is the most noticable there...
[-] richardreddit | -7 points
Oh boy that's some nice shilling
Could you please include a sample video as well?
[-] HomemadeCheesecake | 3 points
Alryt
[-] Mentioned_Videos | 5 points
Videos in this thread:
VIDEO|COMMENT -|- (1) Hovering Hummingbird (2) Hummingbird @60FPS|+11 - Not completely true. While we don't see a specific framerate, we will see things that move at certain speeds appear to blur, such as a car tire, or even have it appear to spin backwards. It's not always "straight up better". Sometimes you get clari... !!TV filmed with High Speed Camera!!|+1 - In reverse order: We see 30 and 60 differently than we see real life because neither are a steady stream of information and are instead single frames in sequence. It is not one or the other. Things moving just so can create visual illusions, or hav... HUMMINGBIRDS GOPRO HERO 3 BLACK 1080P 60 FPS|0 - the 30 fps video is "smooth" and the 60 fps video looks less smooth because of shutter speed. I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
How do you go about interpolating these movies and how long does it take to render? Would like to try this myself on a few things
[-] AnotherAsian123 | 2 points
Can i ask, what does interpolation do exactly?
[-] HomemadeCheesecake | 8 points
Those movies were not shot with a 60fps camera, so the encoder interpolates a new frame between the original frames by predicting mathematically which pixels should come where
[-] AnotherAsian123 | 2 points
Oh ok, sweet, ill grab Deadpool and Doctor Strange :) Thanks!
[-] djkatastrof | 2 points
This is awsome! Thank you for this :)
but... why....
[-] HomemadeCheesecake | 24 points
[-] aliensoulR | 1 points
Thanks man . I saw BvS in list nad thats iti m sold
[-] TheAndrewBen | 1 points
it's showing a HOST ERROR. Is it dead?
[-] Stevilinho | 1 points
same here :( hopefully just a temporary error :)
Tip: Use SVP to play any video upto 120FPS "https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Download". And it's feature to play 10bit video. So need to buy high end TV.
Hell no. high FPS in movies looks too surreal! That's why no one likes it. IT SHOWS HOW SLOW MOVEMENT REALLY IS! Not everyone can punch like Bruce Lee did, so if we watch Liam Neeson throw a punch, it will look incredibly bad. So bad. This is the sole reason to avoid high FPS movies. It shows you the fluidity, in turn, exposing the mediocrity of say, a jab, whereas the 24fps would make it seem FASTER (to throw and then bring back).
[-] generalecchi | 1 points
I'd wait for a sample
[-] mr__churchill | 1 points
Question: what application can i use to play these files reliably? I'm currently using 5KPlayer on Macbook and all i get is this weird pixelated grey mess. I don't think the player can handle it. What are other people using to watch these files? Quite interested to see what they look like
[-] [deleted] | 11 points | Jul 28 2017 06:04:27
It makes everything look like a soap opera
permalink
[-] odellusv2 | 11 points | Jul 28 2017 09:14:11
that's the point. it really sucks high framerate television/movies are hamstrung like this. there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but because everyone has grown up with low framerate, high framerate gets stigmatized as looking unreal when it's simply straight up better.
permalink
[-] Head_Cockswain | 25 points | Jul 28 2017 10:51:41
Not completely true.
While we don't see a specific framerate, we will see things that move at certain speeds appear to blur, such as a car tire, or even have it appear to spin backwards. It's not always "straight up better". Sometimes you get clarity where you don't actually see it in real life, and that can be jarring.
For some things, ~30 FPS approximates this great(using 30 for ease of use and examples, yes video can be ~24 or 27 or 29, etc). That is often lost or appears different in 60 fps as we can snag individual frames of video(we can at much higher frame-rates).
We may be conditioned to the things that ~30 gets wrong, but there are things in 60 that are also wrong(in other words, things that are unlike how we see things in real life).
A great example is birds. Some birds can flap their wings at 30 flaps a second and on 30 fps it can appear to be hovering with spread wings. (There was a great image of this not long ago that hit the top of reddit, I even got gilded because I answered a question there) https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/6nubr2/floaty_bird_floating/
Now, think about a bird that flaps it's wings at twice the rate, which hummingbirds do. At 60 fps, they can appear to just hover in the same fashion as the pic above(though their wing speeds can vary, up to 80 a second, in which case, you see varying stuttering images of the wings in a few sproadically different positions, not the smooth blurred position as below).
In real life, hummingbirds wings seem to blur similar to what they do in 30fps. (we noticed some in our area and once we put up feeders we see them all summer long) Very much like this video, a nice smooth blur: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXdPw2jKe0
But in this 60FPS footage, the wings very apparently stutter around and don't seem to have smooth motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGOvOhPMOnM
This can happen with a wide variety of moving objects....similar to the hyper realistic scenes from Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator(some may have been done with different frame rates of the camera or different shutter speeds, there are various means to similar results) and whether that's a good thing or not is highly subjective, for some people it can be distracting or even off-putting if not used in an appropriate fashion(eg a lot of Gopro 60fps footage, people just find utterly shitty because it's always 60)
That's the thing with video, we're used to seeing a steady stream of incoming photons(not a series of still frames) and things that move too fast will seem to blur because of our persistance of visionour ability to process, how long the impression of light lingers).
All video based on individual frames will have some form of this uncanney valley sort of effect, depending on the speed of the motion and such things as fine tuning camera speeds. A high frame rate can be shit if the shutter speeds or detector array are taking too small of a sample, it can actually look jittery or give the impression of fast motion or strobing when not tuned with extreme precision(a problem with a lot of consumer cameras) to allow for a little bit of blurred motion(which is what we're used to in real life).
It works great for video games, the higher the framerate the better because there's no format shift from real physical presence to encode into frames, it is all frames to start with. There's always some degredation with film/digital video, which can be magnified to very obvious levels when you record video off of your TV or computer with a camera. In that sense, it's like re-recording magnetic tapes, you lose more and more fidelity with each new copy of the last copy. It's exponential growth of degredation, after just a few iterations things can be very indiscernable if not impossible to make out entirely, fine images such as text are pretty bad even on the first go.
permalink
[-] [deleted] | 3 points | Jul 28 2017 12:40:38
[deleted]
permalink
[-] Head_Cockswain | 4 points | Jul 28 2017 19:22:43
In reverse order:
We see 30 and 60 differently than we see real life because neither are a steady stream of information and are instead single frames in sequence. It is not one or the other. Things moving just so can create visual illusions, or have clarity that we don't really perceive in real life....each has differences with things that are in motion that is relative to the speeds of the frame capture and each frame's exposure time.
If a wheel turns at 60 rotations per second, and you film it at 60 frames per second, it will appear to not be moving if the timings are perfect because it is in the same position each frame is captured(the same principle as the reddit thread I linked above, which is why it looks like the bird isn't moving it's wings, http://i.imgur.com/8X8Fcoy.gifv). This is known as the wagon-wheel effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon-wheel_effect
Varying speeds of the wheel and the capture can create all sorts of different effects, as in create an illusion that the wheel is spinning slower or even spinning backwards, in still pictures it can even change the shape of such things as propeller blades as different lines of pixels are pushed out at minuscule time differences.
Real picture:
http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/15/47/980x490/landscape-1447698990-prop.jpg
Explanation:
http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/15/47/1447700421-propeller.gif
Yet, in real life we can see similar optical illusions: http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2193187
These various things happen because we see a constant stream of light in real life. Think of it like a shower. Thousands of different droplets and all random times and places. Video would be like getting hit with really thin but solid sheets of water with nothing between.
Video only works because we have what is known as persistance of vision. This is why old film footage at ~15 frames a second(fps) appeared to stutter, because the lasting impression of light in our eyes/brains works on a shorter interval so we perceive the time between the frames, which is why TV settled at 24-30 FPS.
The blur there comes when motion happens during the exposure time(also known as shutter speed), even at 1/30th of a second there is motion, so it captures as a blur. This can be adjusted by shortening exposure time of individual frames, most 60 FPS cameras have exposure times roughly half the the exposure time of 30 fps video(twice as fast means time exposed is half as big). You can obtain similar clarity of image by shortening the exposure of 30 fps video frames.
If we did not have persistence of vision, if we processed information immeasurably fast, old Tube TV's would not be watchable, because those were actually a focused beam that moved back and forth changing colors as it went. Much like those little LED fans that you can program words into and you see them when the fan is spinning.
Slow motion footage is created by filming at high FPS and then slowing it down. Here is footage of an old tube TV filmed with a high speed camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMeLKOQ0ZhE
Notice there is still some persistance of ~~vision~~ light as pixels are warmed up to emit light and stay that way for a short amount of time, and then fade out(making it look like a band of light instead of just a dot)
Hopefully this is enough information broken down into different ideas to help you understand the concepts.
Here's a neat video on how some video, primarily pixels, work. Monitors work because of the scale, the window of size at which we perceive objects is limited as well(which is why we need microscopes to magnify small things, and even optical magnification can have it's limits).
permalink
[-] Gucek001 | 1 points | Jul 30 2017 19:42:24
in addition to 30/60fps capture there is one thing you don't mention: shutter speed. that floating bird 'works' because of shutter being much faster than 1/30. so.. blurring/shutter speed is another variable here (within 1/30 or 1/60 limitations)
permalink
[-] odellusv2 | -1 points | Jul 28 2017 11:07:52
the 30 fps video is "smooth" and the 60 fps video looks less smooth because of shutter speed.
https://youtu.be/rFwOXofnkSY
permalink
[-] FredDerfman | 3 points | Jul 28 2017 14:01:10
I think you are mistaking "straight up clearer" and perhaps "straight up sharper" for "straight up better".
Clearer and sharper are objective descriptions that may be be what you like, but clearly isn't what everyone likes. Better is an opinion, which many people (myself included) do not share.
permalink
[-] odellusv2 | 4 points | Jul 28 2017 21:23:06
it doesn't have to be clearer and my preference has (mostly) nothing to do with that. it's all about smoothness. this is what i'm talking about. everyone grows up thinking 24 fps is what movies and tv shows simply are and anything that strays from that is wrong, and then people try to justify it with reasons that aren't factual or ones that are something other than "it's how it's always been" when really that's the root cause of all of it and we all know it. you can make any framerate video have as much motion blur as you want because of shutter speed. this is the argument the guy that wrote a huge wall of nothing was trying to use, completely born of ignorance. as an aside, it's always funny when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about writes a huge post and even though everything they've written is wrong, they'll still get upvoted because people assume that because they wrote a lot they know what they're talking about. anyways, he tried to use these two videos to somehow "prove" that 30 fps is better for recording hummingbirds because of some silly thing like the framerate synchronizes with how fast they're flapping their wings or whatever and it makes the 60 fps video look too stuttery/sharp (yes someone really is trying to argue that 60 fps is worse because 30 fps is smoother):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHXdPw2jKe0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGOvOhPMOnM
now look at this video where the camera has a slower shutter speed than the previous 60 fps one and it now has comparable motion blur to the 30 fps video whilst being much smoother:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGOvOhPMOnM
24 fps was chosen way back when because it was the bare minimum necessary to not look like stop-motion. it isn't some magic number that looks more "real" than any other framerate, it was picked simply because any higher would've been too expensive and any lower would've been too choppy. we very well could have been having this exact same conversation about 60 fps versus 120 fps or any other variation, just as we are now. it's really funny when you think about it; people defending something so arbitrary and objectively inferior simply because it's what they're used to. oh well.
permalink
[-] Avid28 | -1 points | Jul 28 2017 10:45:45
Yea like when you can tell a show was LIVE versus filmed earlier. It's so strange.
EDIT : People are dumb... no I never said I could see frames... there is clear differences in LIVE vs filmed. Lighting for example. I don't know check youtube maybe? ER had 1 live show and it looks different since it was LIVE.... geez
permalink
[-] [deleted] | 0 points | Jul 28 2017 12:36:58
[deleted]
permalink
[-] Avid28 | 1 points | Jul 28 2017 13:17:58
I mean I can tell it looks different. Not the FPS but the lighting and other things look different.
permalink
[-] dirtydanisreal | 3 points | Jul 28 2017 16:31:59
Soap opera is the only thing that's about 24 fps. TV shows are either 24 or 30. 60 really helps films with action since there's less blur and you can tell what's happening better. It's easier on your eyes since they aren't working as hard to fill in the gaps
permalink
[-] MrMehawk | 1 points | Jul 31 2017 03:40:24
With all due respect, the brain fills in the gaps. The eyes barely do anything in that equation.
permalink
[-] dirtydanisreal | 1 points | Aug 02 2017 20:51:29
yeah thats what i meant. i knew that didnt read right.
Eyes look for the info. Brain processes it and tries to fill in the gaps between the frames which deliver the information. Less frames there are the less info your eyes pick up and your brain has to work harder to fill in the gaps and your eyes work harder. Thats why more frames means its easier on your eyes because they dont have to work as hard. Frame interpolation software takes one or two duplicates of the previous frame and attempts to make it appear smoother but your brain knows something is fucky, and the software isnt perfect so it can't predict when fast movement is going to happen so you get artifacts like ghosting. Only reason we call it the soap opera effect is we've been accustomed to the standard of 24 FPS ever since Edison decided that was the best framerate. When you get used to watching film at 60 fps it is very comfortable. Not very many things are truly filmed at 60 fps, aside from homemade footage, so you will get ghosting from interpolated versions of movies and shows. I do encourage you try it, it really is hard to go back.
permalink