1 2 3 4
8 9
Posted: 7/12/2011 2:08 PM
Quote
GabCM
He/Him
Joined: 5/5/2009
Posts: 901
Location: QC, Canada
Thanks for this short version! I had to make some corrections. 
function TASBlend(clip c)  { 
        Interleave(Layer(SelectEvery(c, 4, 0), SelectEvery(c, 4, 1), level=int(round((2.0 / 3) * 257))), 
        \          Layer(SelectEvery(c, 4, 2), SelectEvery(c, 4, 3), level=int(round((1.0 / 3) * 257)))) 
}
I'm going to test this with two other games.
Posted: 7/12/2011 2:11 PM
Quote
feos
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
NES TAS of 2011
Compare these two videos in VirtualDub. http://www.mediafire.com/?egr5iv64w4vyl0e
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Posted: 7/12/2011 2:13 PM
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
I'm very pleasantly amazed the idea worked out SO well. That 66%/33% blend method is really by far the best I've seen. Very little blur, all the flickering intact, no irregular jitter to talk about. This is excellent and should be used for every game that has 30 Hz flicker.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:00 PM
Quote
Dada
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Looks a lot better than I expected. Though, it would be nice to have another example that uses a bit more scrolling at higher speeds.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:02 PM
Quote
GabCM
He/Him
Joined: 5/5/2009
Posts: 901
Location: QC, Canada
Nahoc wrote:
Agreed! I love the first one. This should be tested with some Megaman X flicker too.
Take a look at this. So yeah, I've applied the TASBlend function on Mega Man X. Again, it looks good. The AVS script for this clip is here. I've also tested this function on a recent game. More specifically, the PC version of Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition. It was captured at 60 fps using Fraps, lossless enabled. Sadly, TASBlend doesn't do much on this game, so it's not worth uploading.
Dada wrote:
Looks a lot better than I expected. Though, it would be nice to have another example that uses a bit more scrolling at higher speeds.
I'll make one on Sonic Advance 2 then.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:12 PM
Quote
Dada
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Mister Epic wrote:
Nahoc wrote:
Agreed! I love the first one. This should be tested with some Megaman X flicker too.
Take a look at this. So yeah, I've applied the TASBlend function on Mega Man X. Again, it looks good. The AVS script for this clip is here.
What's weird is near the end, during the boss fight, in some cases the boss flashed with 33% and at other times with 66% opacity. I guess there's no way around that though. The blurriness from screen scrolling seemed to be most pronounced in the outside part of the level due to how bright it was.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:16 PM
Quote
DarkKobold
Skilled player (1652)
Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy
Arcade TASer of 2010 PCE TASer of 2010 Arcade TAS of 2010 Lucky TAS of 2009 Lucky TAS of 2007
A quick question - all of this seems to be based on the fact that youtube... sucks. Seriously, seriously, sucks. Is the only reason we focus on youtube is due to its popularity?
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:28 PM
Quote
creaothceann
He/Him
Editor
Joined: 4/7/2005
Posts: 1874
Location: Germany
Mister Epic wrote:
The AVS script for this clip is here.
If you're using ConvertToRGB32, it's best to do it right away. ;)
Dada wrote:
Looks a lot better than I expected. Though, it would be nice to have another example that uses a bit more scrolling at higher speeds.
Gimmick and Yoshi's Island are games where I noticed the motion blur being distracting (at 50%). Will try that myself...
DarkKobold wrote:
A quick question - all of this seems to be based on the fact that youtube... sucks. Seriously, seriously, sucks.
If the player supports 60 fps then frame blending isn't required, of course.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:34 PM
Quote
Dada
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
DarkKobold wrote:
A quick question - all of this seems to be based on the fact that youtube... sucks. Seriously, seriously, sucks. Is the only reason we focus on youtube is due to its popularity?
I think Youtube isn't that bad. It's too bad that it doesn't support 60fps, which is a major advantage of DailyMotion, but personally I'd prefer to use Youtube since that's where the audience is. It has about a 43% market share (followed by Hulu which has barely more than 3% market share). So in terms of getting our runs to people, there's really no alternative.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:38 PM
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
With regards to video quality/convenience/freedom of input/output formats, 30 fps is YouTube's one and only disadvantage by now. Everything else has been fixed.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:53 PM
Quote
Aktan
Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
moozooh wrote:
With regards to video quality/convenience/freedom of input/output formats, 30 fps is YouTube's one and only disadvantage by now. Everything else has been fixed.
I disagree. The quality is still subpar. I rather have more control on what bitrate I can use.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:57 PM
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
But YT has the best video quality among the streaming services already. The only way to make it better is to do what you've been doing with Archive.org.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:58 PM
Quote
Aktan
Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
moozooh wrote:
But YT has the best video quality among the streaming services already. The only way to make it better is to do what you've been doing with Archive.org.
It does? That's news to me. I have not compared other sites recently. Are you sure?
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:58 PM
Quote
Dada
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Aktan wrote:
moozooh wrote:
With regards to video quality/convenience/freedom of input/output formats, 30 fps is YouTube's one and only disadvantage by now. Everything else has been fixed.
I disagree. The quality is still subpar. I rather have more control on what bitrate I can use.
Are there any other video hosting sites that do allow finer control, though? I presume most of them just encode everything to conform to similar standards, with decent quality for most people, good quality for those who want it (480p) and the optional HD resolutions as well. I don't know any site that allows resolutions over 1080p.
Posted: 7/12/2011 3:58 PM
Quote
Aktan
Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Dada wrote:
Are there any other video hosting sites that do allow finer control, though? I presume most of them just encode everything to conform to similar standards, with decent quality for most people, good quality for those who want it (480p) and the optional HD resolutions as well. I don't know any site that allows resolutions over 1080p.
Archive.org
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:06 PM
Quote
GabCM
He/Him
Joined: 5/5/2009
Posts: 901
Location: QC, Canada
DarkKobold wrote:
A quick question - all of this seems to be based on the fact that youtube... sucks. Seriously, seriously, sucks.
It doesn't suck. It just lacks 60 fps. It's probably the only site (this, and Archive) that supports 4K resolution and 3D playback options (useful for Virtual Boy movies). Plus, a lot of users don't have a time limit! It just needs 60 fps support.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:14 PM
Quote
Kuwaga
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
The Mega Man X example made me notice that with 66%/33% I perceive the frame with higher opacity to come chronologically later, which resulted in some mildly confusing movements. Too bad... The flickering looked alright though.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:14 PM
Quote
Lex
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Mister Epic wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
A quick question - all of this seems to be based on the fact that youtube... sucks. Seriously, seriously, sucks.
It doesn't suck. It just lacks 60 fps. It's probably the only site (this, and Archive) that supports 4K resolution and 3D playback options (useful for Virtual Boy movies). Plus, a lot of users don't have a time limit! It just needs 60 fps support.
It also needs correct 1080p support. It destroyed the quality of a 1920×1080 video I uploaded. It also needs nearest neighbor scaling.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:17 PM
Quote
moozooh
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
Destroyed? You people sure are picky. :P That replay didn't look half bad on my PVA display. (Also, I remember having a video file of said replay on my HDD actually.)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:18 PM
Quote
GabCM
He/Him
Joined: 5/5/2009
Posts: 901
Location: QC, Canada
Lex wrote:
Mister Epic wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
A quick question - all of this seems to be based on the fact that youtube... sucks. Seriously, seriously, sucks.
It doesn't suck. It just lacks 60 fps. It's probably the only site (this, and Archive) that supports 4K resolution and 3D playback options (useful for Virtual Boy movies). Plus, a lot of users don't have a time limit! It just needs 60 fps support.
It also needs correct 1080p support. It destroyed the quality of a 1920×1080 video I uploaded. It also needs nearest neighbor scaling.
I agree with you about the nearest neighbor scaling, but no streaming site supports it yet. For 1080p, it doesn't look THAT bad. I think I've seen worse.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:24 PM
(Edited: 7/12/2011 4:26 PM)
Quote
Dada
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
I'm not sure I agree on point resize support. That's only useful with super high quality encodes (otherwise the pixel art gets mangled anyway, even with quality on par with 480p) that don't use (significant) upscaling, and Youtube doesn't provide them right now anyway. Going down from any large size to the native screen size with only point resizing would introduce artifacts (some pixels being larger than others). In that case, using a bilinear scale is better.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:26 PM
Quote
Aktan
Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Lex wrote:
It also needs correct 1080p support. It destroyed the quality of a 1920×1080 video I uploaded. It also needs nearest neighbor scaling.
This is another reason why I asked, "Are you sure YT quality is great?" YouTube has been known to cut the vertical resolution in half, and then up scaling it again, effectively losing 50% of the vertical resolution.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:27 PM
Quote
Dada
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Aktan wrote:
This is another reason why I asked, "Are you sure YT quality is great?" YouTube has been known to cut the vertical resolution in half, and then up scaling it again, effectively losing 50% of the vertical resolution.
You mean it erroneously determines the video to be interlaced and deinterlaces it? That's weird. I wonder what system it uses to determine that.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:31 PM
Quote
Aktan
Publisher
Joined: 4/23/2009
Posts: 1283
Dada wrote:
You mean it erroneously determines the video to be interlaced and deinterlaces it? That's weird. I wonder what system it uses to determine that.
Not at all, you really lose half the vertical resolution, unless you are suggesting YT deinterlaces using Bob method.
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:33 PM
(Edited: 7/12/2011 4:44 PM)
Quote
Lex
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
moozooh wrote:
Destroyed? You people sure are picky. :P That replay didn't look half bad on my PVA display. (Also, I remember having a video file of said replay on my HDD actually.)
For reference, here's how it looks in the original video file, as played by MPC-HC: http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/image/screenshots/mi2mpc-hc.png. Yes, YouTube destroyed its quality. Compare with the same map after the destruction by YouTube: http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/image/screenshots/mi2youtube.png. (Thanks for the idea, moozooh!)
1 2 3 4
8 9