Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AVX2 Tuning Paying Off Big Time For Dav1d 10b/12b Video Decode

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • linuxgeex
    replied
    Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
    Wow, cool and everything, but why the fuck we still have stone age framerate ?
    I don't give a fuck that the the CPU can decode the 100-600 FPS when the video is still 24 FPS !
    I'm really tired of blurry vision !
    Shared library improvements float all boats.

    The main bonus to having 100fps decode ability when you're only watching 24fps content, is that your CPU will be 75% idle, which is good for battery life on mobile devices. If you're a shut in, as most of us have been for the last 15 months, then you won't care for now lol, but at some point you will want to venture outdoors again!

    Another benefit is if you want to run some high quality post-processing filters on your video. If the CPU is pegged then you won't have any room left for filtering. I admit that's a technical usage which few users will actually take advantage of, but it's something that I use 100% of the time via my .mpv/config file, and frequently via an mpv addon which allows adding filters on the fly via the ~ key.

    For example:

    1) Sometimes I will be watching an action film at 24fps, and high motion scenes start to look like a slideshow, I'll enable motion-compensated frame interpolation up to 48fps. My current CPU cannot handle that so I have to transcode it. I suspect that if I had a Ryzen 5600, I could get away with it in-core.

    2) when watching Star Trek TOS at 1080p, they used a "soft focus" effect when they filmed it and I really dislike that effect so I want to use a series of unsharp mask filters to clean it up.

    3) Sometimes there are shows with a ridiculous amount of film grain (TNG) and I'll use hqdn3d to reduce the grain without blurring.

    4) Sometimes I'll be watching 1080i 50fps content and want to use motion-compensated deinterlacing. That pretty much pegs 2 cores.

    Lastly, there are people in using devices with less capable CPUs than you. ie S905x TV boxes, which are currently mainstream, and they don't support hardware AV1 10-bit streams in hardware. This patch doesn't affect them but patches in the same spirit of improvement above and beyond what is usable for yourself personally, has enabled these devices to play higher resolution streams. A recent update to VLC for iOS made 1080p AV1 play flawlessly on my brother's ancient original AppleTV.
    Last edited by linuxgeex; 31 May 2021, 12:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by [TV] View Post
    Unfortunately AMD completely abandoned the awesome Fluid Motion. It took about two movies with Fluid Motion on to not want to go back. It still works great with GCN based cards and is lighter on the CPU than SVP, but it's Windows only
    We should petition them to open source it.

    Leave a comment:


  • [TV]
    replied
    With all the benefit from AV1 compression, every production outside of feature films and scripted television should adopt 60 FPS or even better 120 FPS since it's divisible by 24, 30 and 60 for the lower end broadcasts. Especially live events like sports and concerts benefit from the higher frame rate. Films and TV shows can adopt higher frame rates when the film makers actually learn how to utilize and shoot in higher frame rates. Well that's at least the reason Douglas Trumbull once gave in an interview about the subject. Cameron visited Trumbull's studio some years ago and he might even go 120 FPS 3D with his Avatar sequels.

    Unfortunately AMD completely abandoned the awesome Fluid Motion. It took about two movies with Fluid Motion on to not want to go back. It still works great with GCN based cards and is lighter on the CPU than SVP, but it's Windows only, unlike SVP.

    Meanwhile, there is a very interesting project brewing called RIFE - Real Time Video Interpolation.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
    And you claim this after having tried it out for yourself, right?
    I know exactly what it does. We've already had this conversation.

    Did you try the experiment I mentioned, comparing a HFR pan with a LFR or your simple cross-fading?

    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
    What I have posted definitely is the best solution, because:

    - No artifacts whatsoever,
    Cross-fading between frames indeed has artifacts.

    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
    which your TV's lousy interpolation algorithm likes to introduce every so often!
    Depends on the implementation.

    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
    - No damn Soap-Opera effect, which makes films basically unwatchable on your TV!
    (Go & listen to Tom Cruise for a second opinion...)
    First, Tom Cruise is a nut. However, he has plenty of company among Hollywood Luddites, who worship 24 fps and even still prefer to shoot on film. They built their careers on these technologies and invested lots of time and energy in learning to work with their limitations. It's hardly surprising they're resistant to change.

    Millions of gamers aren't wrong in their quest for higher framerates. We can debate how high it really makes sense to go, but it's a hell of a lot higher than 24!

    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
    - Still gets COMPLETELY rid of motion judder, contrary to your baseless claim!
    It doesn't actually, because the contribution of adjacent frames oscillates. So, if you're watching a smooth pan, you'd see a beat frequency in the amount of double-image that's visible.

    If this were such an ultimate solution, why did the industry go on to develop vastly more sophisticated algorithms to do a better job?

    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
    Next time, actually try out the stuff you like to criticize beforehand.
    I've seen this technique plenty.

    I'd challenge you to check your facts!

    This isn't the best example, but it gets the point across. I should note their optical flow-based interpolation is very poor, compared to other implementations I've seen.


    Check out the sample videos on this site, to see what a good implementation looks like!


    And if you want Hollywood testimonials, they also have endorsements from James Cameron and Peter Jackson.

    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxxx
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    No, it doesn't. It just enables frame-blending. That won't do much for the effect of exaggerated motion-blurring, nor will it completely eliminate motion judder.
    And you claim this after having tried it out for yourself, right?

    Yeah, thought as much...

    What I have posted definitely is the best solution, because:

    - No artifacts whatsoever, which your TV's lousy interpolation algorithm likes to introduce every so often!

    - No damn Soap-Opera effect, which makes films basically unwatchable on your TV!
    (Go & listen to Tom Cruise for a second opinion...)

    - Still gets COMPLETELY rid of motion judder, contrary to your baseless claim!

    Next time, actually try out the stuff you like to criticize beforehand.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
    As a side note, I watched Gemini Man in 4K HDR at 60 FPS.

    It was wonderful, the best HFR movie I have ever seen, so natural, so realistic.

    I heard that it was filmed in native 120 FPS and it was amazing (as people who have seen it in cinmas said), but I could not find anywhere that version.
    Yes! I saw it in 3D + 4k laser projection, and it was absolutely like looking though a window!

    Sadly, enough old crusty movie afficianados seem to have lowered their reviews of the movie, specifically because of the HFR that I fear the technique will fail to gain wider adoption.

    I think the motorcycle chase scene is a revelation in what the technique can do. Just watch that back-to-back with a 24 fps car chase sequence and you'll notice the clarity and additional camera angles that HFR enables.

    The other thing I think slightly hurt some of its reviews is the digital double of a younger Will Smith. It was incredibly good, but not quite perfect. Some critics might've regarded it as too much of a gimmick.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    freesync is a solution to this problem
    The best it can do is eliminate motion judder. It doesn't perform motion-interpolation.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
    ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf


    Problem solved!
    No, it doesn't. It just enables frame-blending. That won't do much for the effect of exaggerated motion-blurring, nor will it completely eliminate motion judder.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    TLDR: Normally it is when a video's FPS and display's frame rate don't mathematically line up you get that effect. 60fps content on a 60hz/60fps display looks beautiful. If it doesn't something probably needs tweaked or there's something psychological at play.
    The soap-opera effect refers to any time that motion-interpolation is used to generate output with a higher framerate than a lower-fps source. It can be an integral-multiple or not.

    Motion-interpolation exists to combat 2 issues:
    • Frame judder - the jerky motion seen when using frame-duplication to display at a non-integral multiple of the source framerate.
    • Motion blur, due to the latched-pixel characteristic of non-CRT displays - moving objects become excessively blurred, because your eyes track them, even as the image pixels continue to display the same color.

    Both are most easily seen in long, sweeping camera pans. Try watching one with & without motion interpolation (sometimes called motion smoothing). I promise you'll see more detail with it enabled. This is what convinced me to enable it & leave it on.

    Because it's a hard problem, the quality of implementations (and the sort of artifacts they exhibit, in corner cases) varies. I've found I'm quite willing to live with the artifacts of my TV's motion smoother, for the sake of its benefits.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by nils_ View Post
    Oftentimes even the title is localized, and often there are hard-coded subtitles (which also isn't necessary since you can include many sub tracks) for third/made-up languages - it often feels less than immersive to me. It's almost never possible to get the full original as shown in the country of Origin and there is no good reason for that to be the case if I'm willing to pay.
    Back when I bought DVDs, I suspected the reason was to prevent Japanese from buying US releases of their stuff, which were normally much cheaper than their own domestic releases. So, it could've been negotiated as part of the US licensing agreement.

    In the age of streaming, there are other ways to geographically restrict content (unless someone is really determined to bypass them). However, the use of hard-subs could frustrate would-be pirates from doing a screen capture of the stream.

    Originally posted by nils_ View Post
    For a long time you didn't even get HD (never mind UHD) content on Linux devices even though you paid full price.
    For the past few years, I've had good luck with browser-based streaming in Chromium.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X