Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
If you don't want to read the wall of text, just answer the poll question please :D I hate avisynth! I've been maintaining the TAS Encoding Package since 2012, and from having had all this avisynth experience, I can say that I absolutely hate it. And the most complex thing in the package has always been the subtitles. We do 3 different types of encodes, and with every one of them, subtitles needs special treatment. For SD encodes we need pixelated font, because default avisynth subtitles (as well as .ass via plugin) have hardcoded antialiasing that makes them blurred as hell at font sizes like 10. Having huge font will be very hard to make it fit into the screen (especially for lowres consoles like GameBoy or A2600). So we use a thing created by natt called FreeSub, it relies on bitmap fonts, so we can make them tiny and pixelated, and they remain readable. For HD encodes we have to use ng_bighalo, because default avisynth subtitle halo is also hardcoded, and it looks tiny in hires encodes where font size is huge. And while ng_bighalo matches avisynth subtitle functionality, FreeSub does not, so every time we need to do some custom tweaking, we have to tweak 2 separate codepaths and then make sure to remember to tweak them back. This is further complicated by primary mkv encode, because it needs to be done at native resolution without any stretching in the encode. We stretch it in the video player via certain arguments. What makes this a nightmare is trying to match how subtitles appear in all the encodes. Consistency is easier to maintain as a user, but it's now completely impossible to maintain it as a developer. Because in order to make the subtitles appear in the same place, we have to guess exactly how much we will resize other encodes for aspect ratio correction, and account for it in the primary. Not only positioning is hard to do consistently, but also dimensions of the subtitle font, because in some encodes font will be too wide or too narrow, depending on which side of the video we have to stretch to apply ARC, and how much (sometimes twice!) Add to that consoles with tiny resolution that need to be stretched (A2600), and it becomes completely impossible to make the subs look decent no matter what you do... while also maintaining automation! There's also VirtualBoy that has 2 screens and we need to make them anaglyth, including the subtitles. Perfect consistency and automation would be possible if we switched to some subtitle method that works equally well in all encodes, but that method either doesn't exist or is a hell to set up and configure.
There's also an option to just drop primary mkv encode... Most people watched on Youtube last time I asked. And while youtube is unique in that it offers space for indefinite amount of videos of indefinite resolution, it's doing weird things with bitrate, and its compression ratio has increased over the years for things like 720p. So the better video you want to see, the higher resolution it has to be. Right now we're kinda overshooting and making 4K encodes (some do 8K), because those look great, but it may be non-trivial to watch them (and upload size is also gigantic). My guess is that most people watch in 1080p. Also there's a thing called takedown. Having everything on one channel is incredibly handy, but we need to be very careful and not accidentally get too many strikes. It happened once some years ago, and it's hard to predict how well youtube keeps behaving in the future. Also for years youtube has had capped framerate, and sometimes it was a real issue, and we had to use workarounds like ng_deblink (or even tasblend). Even today you can't get more than 60fps on youtube, and some systems do need to go higher.
So what about having an actual streaming alternative that's not youtube, doesn't have to be 4K to look good, can have any framerate, and has good and consistent subtitles? I'm talking about turning compatibility mp4 encode (512kb) into that! Most of our systems are TV based. TV based systems (consoles and computers) generate 240p type of signal, and it gets doubled vertically on a TV and always occupies the same field every frame (as opposed to 480i footage that occupies alternating fields). It's why some people saw the scanline effect: the second field was missing, so there were gaps on high TVL sets. But currently, due to limitations in soft aspect ratio correction, we can't force height to double and then adjust width to something specific. We can only do that before encoding: pre-resizing can only be done in compatibility mp4 and in youtube HD. Primary HQ mkv just makes the video player stretch height by uneven factor, which makes things look very weird. To be honest, the entire aspect ratio correction thing looks very bad on native resolution video! For anything that's single pixel in width, you get jumpy artifacts when the screen scrolls, and pixels are constantly unequal. And it's never an integer resizing factor either! If you don't use pixel filter in your player, it may not look as jumpy, but then once you try to zoom in to be able to actually watch it, the whole thing becomes very blurred. Which is why I want our new primary encode (compatibility mp4 stream) to be point-resized to 2x native resolution, and then aspect ratio correction to be applied with lanczos filter. If we do that, subtitles don't have to be pixelated anymore, because now resolution also matches what subtitle developers had in mind, and hardcoded antialiasing will look nice. And we could use the same exact functions for SD and HD encoding, for example .ass, which is much more professional and adjustable than bugged avisynth subtitles. No problem with hardcoded halo width anymore either. There could probably even be some cool movement/masking subtitle effects in SD encodes too!
Legacy 15 years ago it was important to compress encodes like crazy, because youtube was not a thing, other streaming media sites were limited (they still are!), and people were actually paying for every extra megabyte they'd download. This is the only reason we remove duplicate frames from primary encodes, and apply aspect ratio correction to them via video player (so we don't have to resize them, making them bigger). But back then, subtitle business was also much, much, MUCH simpler. People would just put a giant black box covering half the screen, including the main character, and write movie info inside that box. Sometimes way before gameplay even starts. Then 10-bit 4:4:4 encoding appeared. It allowed us to get rid of chroma subsampling that we had to allow in regular encodes. Because compatibility mp4 that we used for streaming sites would be impossible to stream if it had those fancy encoding methods, as well as frame deduplication and soft-ARC. But guess what? 10bit444 encodes are heavier than compatibility mp4! There's more data to process, so in a whole bunch of cases those things meant for minimal size were even bigger than 8-bit 4:2:0 mp4 encodes! Somewhere along the way, filesize stopped playing the huge role it used to play. So to actually maintain some kind of encoding standard, I'm personally ready to reevaluate what we need to encode and how, and I'll be interested in seeing how we can compress 480p compatibility mp4 to make it a good youtube alternative while also feasible for downloads. If a publisher actually wants to do some extra encode (for example for .ass subtitles? or maybe lossless? or extra hires?), I would absolutely not mind, but I'd like to get primary HQ mkv off the official encoding scripts!
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.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I prefer MKV Modern HQ because it's relatively small file size and looks great. I keep a stash of TASs on my HD and backed up on external devices. Archive.org or YouTube stream seems the least frustrating if you just want to watch something, however, you never know when YouTube is going to decide to block a movie (or the entire channel), or Archive.org is going to run into funding issues.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Nach wrote:
I prefer MKV Modern HQ because it's relatively small file size and looks great.
Do my screenshots look great too? Also do you watch zoomed in? If yes, what filter?
Nach wrote:
I keep a stash of TASs on my HD and backed up on external devices.
Do you seed their torrents?
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.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
I prefer MKV Modern HQ because it's relatively small file size and looks great.
Do my screenshots look great too? Also do you watch zoomed in? If yes, what filter?
I don't think I've had any problems with screenshots. I watch videos full screen, using whatever technique mpv uses.
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
I keep a stash of TASs on my HD and backed up on external devices.
Do you seed their torrents?
I have my torrent client set up to seed until it sends out a full copy. Although if I didn't like something, I'll generally end up deleting it before it sends out a full copy.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Nach wrote:
I prefer MKV Modern HQ because it's relatively small file size and looks great.
I guess if I get the size to quality ratio right with my 480p proposal, you'll be fine.
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.
Dimon12321
He/Him
Editor, Reviewer, Experienced player (597)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 1228
Location: Romania
I hate avisynth!
Such a life! I've never figured out how it works. I used MKV Modern HQ once - for Wolfenstein 3D TAS series to see encodes in 70 FPS. In some rare cases, when a temp encode is still missing in the submission, I use emulators.
TASing is like making a film: only the best takes are shown in the final movie.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1361)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
I like the idea of taking out the .mkv encoding. I always thought that it's overkill to have two different download options, especially since if someone really wanted quality, they could just watch the movie directly from the emulator (which is in fact something that I actually do myself, in those rare cares I really want quality). I usually don't really care about quality, and I watch the encodes at x2 zoom in VLC, even though it looks blurred. Regarding the idea of having encodes scaled to double size, I don't know how other people may feel about it, but I'm personally ok with that. That would make it perfect for streaming directly from archive.org. I just wonder if there isn't any other way of having a crisp pixel zoom in an embedded video. Shouldn't be possible to write our own, simple html5 video player to embed in a movie page, that zooms to pixel-perfect scale a video hosted on archive.org? With that said, I think there is an important aspect that should been taken in consideration: the reason why people don't use watching methods other than YouTube. YouTube is handy, but there is already the option to watch the archive.org encodes in streaming with one click, so why people don't do that? Well, I don't think that the reason is the lack of zoom. Instead, I think that's mostly because the streaming buttons are obscure. Most people don't even know that there has always been the possibility of watching embedded streams from archive.org, by clicking on the buttons under the movie screenshot. After all, they don't even look like buttons, and on the other hand there is already a big list of download links that look like they already contain everything there is to find. I think this should be solved with a simple improvement of the site layout, by grouping every watching option together, making all options evident, and with clearer wording:
  • Download BizHawk movie
  • Download video via Torrent
  • Download video from archive.org
  • Watch now from archive.org
  • Watch now from YouTube
  • Watch on YouTube
Note how I carefully avoided any term like "mirror", "encode", "compatibility", because to newcomers they don't make sense. Every additional encode should have the same buttons, but listed as a separate group, in order to avoid cluttering. The links to the submission and forum discussion should also go even more separately.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
My guess is that most people watch in 1080p.
Maybe that needs a poll too, because for bandwidth reasons I usually watch in 480.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Note how I carefully avoided any term like "mirror", "encode", "compatibility", because to newcomers they don't make sense.
Yeah, I've never understood what those "compatibility" movies are supposed to be compatible with; and I've been here for awhile.
Really_Tall
She/Her
Editor, Player (185)
Joined: 9/29/2014
Posts: 122
Location: Scotland
I use YouTube 99% of the time, archive/dailymotion only when there is no YouTube stream, and the actual movie file only when I want to study the inputs or attempt to make an improvement. On the occasion I want to download a video, my first choice is to... use youtube-dl. The filesize difference is irrelevant to me and I'd much rather save the video in high quality, which I know I'll get from the YouTube stream. The alternate encodes definitely feel like a relic of the site's beginnings. They aren't used by the overwhelming majority of the site's audience, particularly the large casual audience that only watches on TASVideosChannel. Considering how much trouble they apparently are, it makes perfect sense to me to remove them, or consolidate them into a more easily maintained option.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Most people don't even know that there has always been the possibility of watching embedded streams from archive.org, by clicking on the buttons under the movie screenshot. ... I think this should be solved with a simple improvement of the site layout, by grouping every watching option together, making all options evident, and with clearer wording.
Already vastly improved on the new site! Here's a random publication for you to check the new design: https://demo.tasvideos.org/1734M
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I just wonder if there isn't any other way of having a crisp pixel zoom in an embedded video. Shouldn't be possible to write our own, simple html5 video player to embed in a movie page, that zooms to pixel-perfect scale a video hosted on archive.org?
Even if someone is crazy enough to add that, we also want it to remain a valid downloadable, so it's just overall better to apply all the stretching before encoding. And most importantly, if we don't pre-stretch, subtutles remain a disturbing hell.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
With that said, I think there is an important aspect that should been taken in consideration: the reason why people don't use watching methods other than YouTube. YouTube is handy, but there is already the option to watch the archive.org encodes in streaming with one click, so why people don't do that? Well, I don't think that the reason is the lack of zoom.
There's no way to control zoom though. You either watch on native res or in full screen. And you can't change audio volume unless you fullscreen it. And it doesn't remember the volume anyway.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Instead, I think that's mostly because the streaming buttons are obscure. Most people don't even know that there has always been the possibility of watching embedded streams from archive.org, by clicking on the buttons under the movie screenshot. After all, they don't even look like buttons, and on the other hand there is already a big list of download links that look like they already contain everything there is to find. I think this should be solved with a simple improvement of the site layout, by grouping every watching option together, making all options evident, and with clearer wording:
  • Download BizHawk movie
  • Download video via Torrent
  • Download video from archive.org
  • Watch now from archive.org
  • Watch now from YouTube
  • Watch on YouTube
Note how I carefully avoided any term like "mirror", "encode", "compatibility", because to newcomers they don't make sense. Every additional encode should have the same buttons, but listed as a separate group, in order to avoid cluttering. The links to the submission and forum discussion should also go even more separately.
Appearance will be figured out when we agree what encodes we want to have, but overall it's a topic for the new site.
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.
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Radiant wrote:
Maybe that needs a poll too, because for bandwidth reasons I usually watch in 480.
Hmm, but youtube's 480p looks really bad these days! Even 720p is worse than it used to be. And sounds like 480p archive.org stream that still looks like youtube's 1080p is exactly what you need!
Radiant wrote:
Yeah, I've never understood what those "compatibility" movies are supposed to be compatible with; and I've been here for awhile.
With all the variety of software and hardware players, as well as streaming media sites. MP4 is much more commonly supported by legacy players than MKV with its bajillion fancy features and modern codecs we use for primary.
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.
EZGames69
He/They
Publisher, Reviewer, Expert player (4468)
Joined: 5/29/2017
Posts: 2765
I’m actually against removing downloadables entirely. I think they’re useful in case something goes wrong with the YouTube uploads, because despite it being really easy to upload the main videos there, Youtube as we all know can sometimes take down videos or make them unavailable for a multitude of reasons (most for completely crap reasons like copyright, TOS violations, being set to age restriction). That being said I do agree that we probably don’t need the mkv encodes anymore, as a publisher those encodes are rather annoying to deal with, for example subtitles using the native res before being stretched in the output. Although I wouldn’t be against publishers or encoders including whichever ones they want (but dont do avi encodes PLEASE).
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't 12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!" Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish [Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
Spikestuff
They/Them
Editor, Publisher, Expert player (2656)
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6449
Location: The land down under.
feos wrote:
Radiant wrote:
Maybe that needs a poll too, because for bandwidth reasons I usually watch in 480.
Hmm, but youtube's 480p looks really bad these days! Even 720p is worse than it used to be. And sounds like 480p archive.org stream that still looks like youtube's 1080p is exactly what you need!
Anything lower than 720p is out of the question automatically, due to titles that support 50/60fps, we shouldn't be considering reverting to pre-2015 methods. Secondly, resolution should not be capped to 1080p, nor 1440p for that matter. We should keep to that 4K resolution due to titles that produces colour vomit (see J. J. Squawkers) or PlayStation titles that are both 3D and has dithering (see Crash Warped) implementing. The image can become muddy, and that's not what we're after. This is mainly a matter for best visual presentation that we, the Encoder and Publisher can provide to the audience these days. The audience can watch at whatever best suits them and also the more options we provide, the less time future Encoders need to work on for whatever is considered "outdated" in the future. Also for the sake of noting, YouTube also does, and has reprocessed the videos uploaded to their platform, there's a reason why 720p is no longer marked as "HD". PracticalTAS first marked interest about this on Discord, followed by Masterjun checking one of their 2019 videos.
Masterjun wrote:
here is a cherry picked line from like 2019 and from just now (of course, from the same video)
136          mp4        960x720    720p  737k , avc1.4d401f, 30fps, video only, 26.99MiB
136          mp4        960x720    720p  218k , mp4_dash container, avc1.4d401f@ 218k, 30fps, video only, 13.08MiB
cherry picked because in general, all bitrates and filesizes went down, but the high and low quality ones only went down to 95-90%, not to a whole 50%
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account. Something better for yourself and also others.
fsvgm777
She/Her
Senior Publisher, Player (226)
Joined: 5/28/2009
Posts: 1217
Location: Luxembourg
In my opinion, we can transition away from the modern HQ MKV encodes, as sometimes, subtitle placement can be a bit of a hassle to figure out or, worse, the resulting output is completely blurry (see any recent A2600 encode). Not only that, but sometimes, there's not even any real filesize benefit to it, despite dedupping and the like. Moreover, at native res, subtitle placement can be really tricky either. At twice the native res, most, if not all placement issues, especially for handhelds like GB, will be solved.
Steam Community page - Bluesky profile Oh, I'm just a concerned observer.
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Spikestuff wrote:
We should keep to that 4K resolution due to titles that produces colour vomit (see J. J. Squawkers) or PlayStation titles that are both 3D and has dithering (see Crash Warped) implementing.
That's a fair point for games on fifth-generation consoles like the PlayStation, but what about SNES / GB / DOS titles? Surely they can have a lower-resolution encode (assuming that doing so saves the encoder work, of course).
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1361)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
Really_Tall wrote:
On the occasion I want to download a video, my first choice is to... use youtube-dl. The filesize difference is irrelevant to me and I'd much rather save the video in high quality, which I know I'll get from the YouTube stream.
Me too 😂 but I didn't mention it because it's clearly unrepresentative. For some stuff I'm really a nerd 😂
Really_Tall wrote:
Already vastly improved on the new site! Here's a random publication for you to check the new design: https://demo.tasvideos.org/1734M
Cool, but has other issues. I'll elaborate in a proper forum thread... Someday™
feos wrote:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I just wonder if there isn't any other way of having a crisp pixel zoom in an embedded video. Shouldn't be possible to write our own, simple html5 video player to embed in a movie page, that zooms to pixel-perfect scale a video hosted on archive.org?
Even if someone is crazy enough to add that, we also want it to remain a valid downloadable, so it's just overall better to apply all the stretching before encoding. And most importantly, if we don't pre-stretch, subtutles remain a disturbing hell.
Yeah, I'm convinced. After all, no one would watch a downloadable without at least x2 zoom anyway, so it really makes sense to upscale it in the encode itself. And if it makes the encoder's life easier, all the better. I just wonder if systems with a big native resolution should instead be encoded as is, like Wii. Where to draw the line?
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Spikestuff wrote:
Anything lower than 720p is out of the question automatically, due to titles that support 50/60fps, we shouldn't be considering reverting to pre-2015 methods. Secondly, resolution should not be capped to 1080p, nor 1440p for that matter. We should keep to that 4K resolution due to titles that produces colour vomit (see J. J. Squawkers) or PlayStation titles that are both 3D and has dithering (see Crash Warped) implementing. The image can become muddy, and that's not what we're after.
I specifically said "480p archive.org stream", which is the thing I'm suggesting to switch to, from native res downloadables. Youtube encoding is not going anywhere.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I just wonder if systems with a big native resolution should instead be encoded as is, like Wii. Where to draw the line?
If it's already 480p output, we won't have to upscale it obviously.
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.
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2241)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2823
Location: Northern California
There was a bit of discussion on Discord about this, and we realized it wasn't quite clear exactly how the MKV encode complicates subtitles, so here's a quick example/explanation: For publications, subtitles need to be placed in a way that doesn't obscure anything relevant to the game or the TAS, i.e they can't cover the character or UI elements. MKV stretches out subtitles horizontally, pretty significantly in fact: This is something you have to actively check during the encoding process, too: For our encoding package, we preview in VirtualDub, and the VirtualDub preview shows the subtitles as they pertain to the MP4 encode. You have to manually check whether or not the MKV subtitles line up in the way you want. This is often not the case, meaning you either have to find a new placement altogether or re-encode MKV with different placement, as shown in the first screenshot with Batman. This is something that new encoders generally find out the hard way, and something that even experienced encoders often overlook, requiring further re-encoding and more time wasted, slowing down publication for a team that's already understaffed and overworked as it is. And the thing is, this problem is inherent to the MKV encode. The YouTube HD stream is essentially just an upscaled version of the MP4 in terms of sub placements, so finding a good placement for MP4 means you've found a good placement for YouTube HD. Dropping support for MKV would mean significantly streamlining the encoding process. TASvideos is trending towards accepting more movies and games as well, meaning in the future publishers will have to work even harder than they already do. No MKV means that encoding would take much less time (both in pure encode time and in prep time), and the overall process would become less daunting for new publishers, possibly enticing new people to help out. In my eyes, there is nothing bad about this change whatsoever, and I 100% support it.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family. Now infrequently posting on Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
InputEvelution
She/Her
Editor, Reviewer, Player (36)
Joined: 3/27/2018
Posts: 195
Location: Australia
Radiant wrote:
That's a fair point for games on fifth-generation consoles like the PlayStation, but what about SNES / GB / DOS titles? Surely they can have a lower-resolution encode (assuming that doing so saves the encoder work, of course).
I can't remember the exact movie this affected in question, but I was watching an older SNES TAS that only had a 1080p60 encode on YouTube some months ago. It had a rapid brightness flickering effect in results screens that affected the whole screen, and the compression that got applied as a result was obvious enough to distract me from the video. Not even 1080p60 is enough for older systems.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
The first level of Sonic 3 is a good example of this.
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.
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
InputEvelution wrote:
SNES TAS that only had a 1080p60 encode on YouTube some months ago. It had a rapid brightness flickering effect in results screens that affected the whole screen
Ok, fair enough.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
archive.org wrote:
What encoding specifications are best for .mp4 files? For your original mp4 to work in the online player we currently require the file to have: audio: aac video: h.264 moov atom: front pixel format: yuv420p If this is not the case we will derive a new mp4 with the file name suffix .ia.mp4
Too bad Archive can't stream 4:2:2 video. That would fit Rec601 so nicely and also look great at 2x, but nope.
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.
Post subject: Re: Future of encoding
Sonia
She/Her
Joined: 12/6/2013
Posts: 435
Location: Brazil
feos wrote:
Even today you can't get more than 60fps on youtube, and some systems do need to go higher.
Speaking of which, how do you guys deal with WonderSwan on youtube? I uploaded a test video encoded through virtualdub with the "Change so video and audio durations match / Convert to fps" options checked (that's the equivalent of Avisynth's ChangeFPS), but since there's a large gap between 75 and 60fps, it looks terrible with several frames dropped constantly. And if you do AssumeFPS, it plays extremely slowly. So what to do then?
Site Admin, Skilled player (1255)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
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.
TiKevin83
He/Him
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player (155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
I've set up a tech demo site https://rgbscaler.com which is capable of playing back video in web browsers with nearest neighbor scaling. This is significant because there's no straightforward way to do this with just a video element and css like there is for images. If an original resolution lossless encode for a TAS was available with 444 chroma and no PAR correction, it could be downloaded and played on rgbscaler.com with the PAR entered there, essentially getting the same quality as a custom encode at the user's window/screen resolution would have. Some drawbacks: the source video has to be in a web compatible format like av1 + opus in the webm container, I'm not sure how fast the canvas can keep up if you try scaling beyond 1080/1440 (I experienced noticeable frame skipping at 2880p), and the demo doesn't solve the issue of baked subtitles scaling badly.