Posts for Aktan

Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
What are you sending to YouTube? Might be a codec or a parameter to that codec that it doesn't like. Edit: fsvgm777 pointed out to me that you included MediaInfo in the description. I'll take a look and edit this comment.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Are you sure you're not mixing DAR with PAR? Your link here says that the NES/SNES has a PAR of 8:7, which should be a DAR of 4:3 on a standard CRT TV.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Whoa, that's a lot of testing. Nice to see you're super curious in what's the best. Here are some select comments:
SuperLumberjack wrote:
That's true, feos' script win ! :-P But the only strange thing I noticed is that the colors changed. We see this in the reds and greens. I don't knwo if it was itentional or not.
I thought the current script would be point resize to the target resolution or bigger in multiples of 2, then downscale to the target resolution if needed. For example:
Language: avisynth

AVISource("movie.avi") PointResize(3408, 2928).LanczosResize(2880, 2160, taps=2) ConvertToYV24(matrix="Rec709", chromaresample="point") ConvertToYV12(matrix="Rec709", chromaresample="lanczos") # Notice the change in chromaresample
There is a slight color bleed which is intentional to make the pixel sizes consistent.
SuperLumberjack wrote:
I use this codec because I had a problem of wrong color matrix when I used the Lagarith codec (because there is no tag for the color matrix) and then encode the video with Handbrake. I'm not a professional for encoding, it's why I use Handbrake. I think the result is really good ! :-)
Yes, Lagarith YV12 is probably using Rec601 color matrix, but since you already know how to use Avisynth, why not capture in RGB and convert it yourself as a last step, then send to Handbrake?
SuperLumberjack wrote:
For the Nnedi3, yes, I already tested it ! ;-) It gives excellent results, but gives sometimes some artefacts too :-/ But I like it too. What did you use to upscale to the final resolution ? Lanczos3 ?
What he did was upscale it above the target resolution, then downscaled to the target resolution with AreaResize. AreaResize uses weighted averages to figure out the end result.
SuperLumberjack wrote:
I forgot to say that personnally, I prefer the "Spline36" algorithm rather than "Lanczos3" (I did lots of comparisons to be sure). The result is quite similar, but there is a bit less ringing ! ;-)
This is why I personally use Lanczos with 2 taps instead of 3. Less ringing but more blurry.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Welcome to the forums SuperLumberjack! I'm happy to see more people in search of the best image quality. Regarding your last post, the reason why we use YV12 is because we rather control how we get to YV12 instead of letting YouTube do it. Basically, the conversion to YV12 is the last step and we would like to control how the color information is thrown out. I hope this makes sense. Now, as to the matter on how to display retro games on a modern display, as you already stated, that is highly subjective. Without going way too off subject, I'm a fan this type of up-scaling for older games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axDY3OBjxzA Here is another example on NES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkP7EscUrl4 This uses the very processor intensive method of nnedi3 up-scaling. Going back to the technical aspect of the perfect AR correction, I must admit I'm not sure how good our method is. I've not had the chance to read through the links, but they do sound interesting.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Fog: Sorry to see you leave, hope all is well.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
In general hardware encoding is inferior quality than x264, as you have seen. Though, I must admit I have not been keeping up so there might be an hardware encoder who does better.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
ffdshow is the decoder for VfW I use that supports FFV1 version 1. Hmm, I knew about this a while back, I guess I didn't mention it anywhere here, sorry.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Good to hear you are making progress! Keep at it!
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
If you are on Windows 10, have you tried changing these settings?
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Hang in there, there will be better days ahead!
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Marusame wrote:
It could be the Svideo, I may try to capture it over just Composit and the flicker might not be there. Also many capture cards including mine, like the GCHD can do deinterlace on the fly which would probably make that go away. I should do some tests. So I could possibly do a passthrough mode, and just select "convert standard definition to 640x480" button. But my idea is to not pretty up the image aftwards with these captures, I sort of want to capture it as it, jank and all. Also I did capture some footage with the game mode "deflicker" option on, the test 4 one, and it was mitigated. I think of the retrotink2x as more of a "what is sent out is mostly what you get back" sort of deal. If the image was flickering since all it does is line double, you will get the flicker doubled as its coming through as well, since its so quick at what it does.
Don't get me wrong, what retrotink2x does is very impressive for on fly and having near zero lag, but it has it's limitation. I'm not saying to "pretty" it up afterwards, I'm saying the "jank" wasn't there in the first place. I'm saying it's an after effect of using scalers and on fly deinterlacing, etc which can be fixed if a better deinterlacer (though slow) is used on the original content. But for the speed purpose, I can see your setup be good enough. This is why I asked if you want the best quality or just good enough. Edit: Going back to your original question before this tangent, I think 480p60 was a limited time thing on YT (my guess) and it is unlikely to get it. Just a guess, that or it needs to be exactly 60 FPS (a wild guess). Edit 2:
natt wrote:
That's why games for consoles in interlaced mode usually render a full progressive image, and then present it for two fields, getting both the bottom and top. If you end up behind, you just show an old field again. There will be slight studder and slowdown as there always is with lag, but with none of the jumps or jerks from the above situation. So, the best way to deinterlace those is to simply recover the original progressive stream by looking at adjacent fields and seeing which ones line up.
No wonder why doing PS1 on BizHawk I had to choose only certain fields.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Marusame wrote:
Well like i said, melee is a VERY BAD EXAMPLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl7Is-VgB8I here is a recent one i did of ff8 on the psone. No matter HOW you capture smash, unless your do it in progressive mode it will have flicker and that weird interlacing. It doesnt do this on anything else, the retrotink was merely outputting what it was getting in. Smash bros melee just sends out a janky signal, probably doing a sort of screen tearing/interlace interrupt to make it as fast as possible. Worst case scenerio really, I should capture other GC games to show that none of that is present on anything else it does. Trust me, its not a deinterlacing going wrong, its more of a what you see is what you get with this thing and what melee sounds out look just that weird even on a CRT over composit. Thats why it had a deflicker option in the menu of the game that helps with it. Its an engine thing.
That's the thing, I've done smash videos in the past and I didn't have those problems. Really is too bad I don't have a GC + Smash somewhere to show what I mean. Watching Smash on Twitch.tv, I wonder how they deinterlace on fly. Your FF8 example does look very good, however. But I think I can do the same in software, I do have my PS1 here but FF8 is somewhere else, I could capture FF9 instead.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
I really doubt retrotink does a better job from the YouTube video you linked us as there is a lot of problems with that video. It's too bad I don't have a GC to make a sample, but would a sample from a PS2 work for you?
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
If your goal is to have the best quality on YouTube, I still think capturing the original interlace signal and then using software deinterlacer like QTGMC would be better quality.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
HC Encoder to get video to MPEG2: http://hank315.nl/ IfoEdit to make the VOBs: https://www.videohelp.com/software/IfoEdit ImgBurn to burn files to DVD: http://www.imgburn.com/ I forgot what I did to convert audio to MP2. Try Google or just use FFMPEG.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Welcome, glad it finally works!
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Guernsey wrote:
Asol, is the aspect ratio different for Genesis consoles or is it just the same?
Genesis is on regular TV so the aspect ratio is always 4:3. Genesis does output in different resolutions, so changing it to 4:3 will be different.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
What happens if you use the WinXP 32-bit version of BizHawk found here: http://tasvideos.org/Bizhawk/ReleaseHistory.html#Bizhawk1132 Edit: You should be using this version of prereq: https://github.com/TASVideos/BizHawk-Prereqs/releases/download/1.4/bizhawk_prereqs_v1.4.zip
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Darth Marios wrote:
I've tested v1.1, v2.0 and v2.1 (and different bizhawk version)
If you don't mind some reboots, can you try this? 1. Reboot 2. Install version 2.1 of prereq 3. Reboot 4. Extract to a new folder of BizHawk version 2.3 5. Try it out!
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Darth Marios wrote:
Sorry, i was wrong. I have AMD graphic (with updated drivers and Catalyst). Anyway i've installed the correct prereqs, but after i saw it didn't work, i installed other prereqs too but nothing changed...
Which two prereq files versions did you try?
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Darth Marios wrote:
Obviously. And after i got error about runtime 2012 missing, i've installed runtime All in One and now i get the error i posted.
What version of the prereq file did you install? The error message you posted doesn't make much sense since you have a decently new computer running Windows higher than 7 with a dedicated GPU that can do 3D quite well. I'm pretty sure DX9 games work on Win8 so the fact it fails to create a Dx9 device is troubling. The other thing I can think of is updating your GPU drivers and/or Intel if it does both. Other thing I can think of is forcing BizHawk to use NVidia.
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Did you install the prerequisites file?
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Darth Marios wrote:
Ah, well, i still dont know what it mean lol But if deinterlacing is so useful, is possible to do with avisynth, and how? Anyway, if i can run hawk or can't, i installed everything necessary but keep giving me errors lol (sorry for OP). Somethings about sounds or what.
What version of Windows do you have and what version of BizHawk are you trying to run?
Experienced Forum User, Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Guernsey wrote:
Is x264 8bit/10 bit the same as the regular x264vfw? OR is it different? What are the differences between the two?
x264vfw is largely outdated. I'm not even sure if there is a 10-bit x264vfw. With H.264 support hacked into AVI anyway, I would really avoid x264vfw if you can. It is most likely 8-bit. x264 8-bit/10-bit EXE is the most up-to-date version of x264. Use those. 10-bit has better compression, but it is more complex, meaning encode and decode slower. If you are sending to YouTube, YouTube is 8-bit (I think?) and you should be sending 8-bit H.264.