Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Rewind

#326
Quote from: CharlieA56 on June 28, 2013, 03:52:30 AM
Can you show us a screen capture of the configuration you're using on Twixtor for this ?
Thanx a lot !
Those my examples are nothing fancy: just standard frame rate conversion using motion-weighted blend and inverse w/Smart blend warping. Interprete your foitage as 18 fps or whatever fps it really was shot, then make comp as desired fps (24 in my case). It just works.


In order to use twixtor with moving objects, you will have to take advantage of foreground/background masks etc.
This tutorial i found on vimeo may be more helpful.
#327
Quote from: pavelpp on June 26, 2013, 09:06:34 PM
People using twixtor - is interpolating 18fps to 24 a big deal? Will the result look acceptable?
Sometimes results are acceptable, even with lots of blurred moving objects, but tweaking the twixtor may be really tricky:
http://youtu.be/tNSh3XctUl0
http://youtu.be/AHLABuolFOY
but i doubt you can shoot the action-movie with this technique )
#328
Quote from: pavelpp on June 26, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
I actually can't install Rewind's build. It keeps giving me error when I load modules. How do I update from mk11174's build? Just copy>replace files, right?

That build compiled with just raw_rec module. You have to disable or delete other modules in order to use it.
#329
Quote from: Kornowski on June 25, 2013, 10:21:21 PM
Excellent work dude, amazing!  :) Is there any plans to add 1088 as a resolution to future builds?
That's not my work, dude. Thanks to devs, A1ex & co. )
Also thanks to mk11174, who made this great tutorial for code-starters )

Watch it, and then you'll can easily add whatever resolutions you want, and much more (that's exactly what i've done: just added a couple of numbers to raw_rec.c file).
At it best, you will want to dig in, and hopefully find some interesting ideas about memory allocation, buffering and other delicious stuff... So welcome aboard )
#330
In order to use the CONFIG_MARK_UNUSED_MEMORY_AT_STARTUP i have to define it in internals.h, right?
#331
So, guys, is the information of the top post still up-to-date?
Where should I start my investigations to dig into that?
Are there any new clues and ideas how to achieve more memory on ours 550d's?
#332
Yeah, i've burnt two of my three 550d's, till i've become smart enough to use this
I think any kind of hi-end water cooling will do the job, but don't try to spare on that.
#333
Quote from: ph2007 on June 21, 2013, 07:05:48 PM
i believe the 95mb card will almost write @21mb constantly, so thats why it will record longer.
other slower card will jump up and down around 21mb.

That's exactly what i've been talking earlier and what my tests proves.
Obviously, there is no any reason to buy a card faster than 21MB/s, but what real life tests shows us, is not every card has the speeds manufacturer declares. My idea is to chose the card that is just fast ENOUGH to do the job of 21MB/s.

Sandisk extreme pro 95MB/s does this job. Other cards i have... don't.
#334
my test shows 1715 frames, so 37% increase vs 1250.

Just tried that at 23 fps. Stopped recording manually after 5000 frames.
Do you agree eventually, that pro 95MB/s has better performance, and still may be the reason to pay more for it?

By the way, i've got my 8GB for less then $25 in god damn Russia, i'm pretty sure you can get it even cheaper in US or Europe. So that is not too expensive, right?
#335
Quote from: qsara on June 21, 2013, 06:16:42 PM
a nice educational video for newcomers, but have you ever seen I mentioned extreme pro?? Extreme 45MB/s cards newer than Extreme Pro 45MB/s cards.

Oh, that's clears the air )
I haven't heard of those new sandisks. Will try if i'll find them out there.
By the way, what are the results with these new cards at the same settings? (1280x426 23,976)
#336
Quote from: qsara on June 21, 2013, 05:24:54 PM
you're a troll, and I'm not feeding you.

show me a video proof of your claim or stop posting about percentages ;)

Come on, man. are you serious? )) What's the reason for trolling?
Specially for you:


Sorry for my English, have to practice more.
#337
Quote from: rideBMX on June 21, 2013, 04:57:59 PM
I really don't understand why you all are getting more than 1250 frames, I still can't get more than 800-820 frames and often just 500 :(
...
Anyone have an idea?


In this mode 1280x426 (3:1)
With this build i can get 1100-1200 frames with sandisk 45, and 1640-1650 with sandisk 95, so there is again difference in about 50%.
I think there are more things going on besides just writing speeds here.
#338
Quote from: qsara on June 21, 2013, 04:28:09 PM
I'm able to record 1250 frames with 45MB/s where you can record 1440 frames with 95MB/s, its not a 30 to 50 percent increase ;)
You're right. It was an obsolete information about 30 to 50 percent. New buffering optimizations makes slower cards act better.
Latest tests give me the numbers like this:

Sandisk 45MB/s        Sandisk 95MB/s
450 frames               530 frames

still notable difference in 18%

(1200x496 @23.976 fps)
#339
Quote from: CFP on June 21, 2013, 03:59:47 PM
8 Megabyte? How do you shoot RAW on these thing? ;D
Typo ) Post now corrected
#340
Quote from: qsara on June 21, 2013, 03:18:54 PM
ML on 550D works best with Sandisk Extreme (new) Series, 30MB/s & 45MB/s, don't bother getting a 95MB/s because it is both expensive and 550D has 21MB/s bottleneck on SD controller

Disagree. My 8GB Sandisk extreme pro 95 MB/s gives me 30 to 50% more frames than 8GB Sandisk extreme pro 45 MB/s.
I think the reason is that 45 MB/s Sandisk cards have real write speeds just in the range of the sd controller's bottleneck (20-21 MB/s), whereas the 95 MB/s ones speeds exceeds this values.
#341
Quote from: MaKsOZ on June 21, 2013, 02:34:54 PM
Would you mind sharing your build ? 8)
ML raw rewind 1

- Latest speculative start optimization
- 1200 px horiz. rezolution and 2.4:1 aspect ratio added

Upd. multiples of 16 works better, so i edited 2.4:1 into 2.42:1, this gives me 1200x496 and 500+ frames.
#342
I've added a couple of numbers to raw_rec.c and now i'm getting around 490 frames (>20 sec) with 1200x500 (nice 2,4:1 aspect ratio). Stable, no pink frames. This is already enough for me to film entire short totally in raw workflow.

550d
1080p 24 fps mode
23.976 fps override
global draw off
Sandisk extreme pro 95 mb/s

p.s. I've added just a 1200 px to the list of resolution choices and my favorite 2.4:1 aspect ratio.
I guess there are much more aspects affecting resolution choices, like DMA cropping routines etc, but 1200 works for me.

upd. Latest A1ex's optimizations (speculative start) doesn't give me any performance increase (as he mentioned, they won't), but either doesn't produce any bugs or artifacts like empty frames etc.
#343
Quote from: rideBMX on June 21, 2013, 09:51:46 AM
I just wanted to ask, how did you get so much frames? I had the exact same setup (45mb SanDisk, 1280 x 426 @ 23.976) and I got 820 - 830 frames consistently.
Could you please tell me what your other settings were?
Just tried 1280x426 at 23.976 fps — i got 1689 frames on Sandisk extreme pro 95 mb/s
Make sure your global draw is off. Otherwise your card may be a bum.
#344
Is there any possibility to try some other resolutions, say 1200x500 (1:2.4) ?
#345
Screenshots for this test
[spoiler]



[/spoiler]
#346
Yes, it works.
I get about 45-55% increase in number of frames before skipping compared to 1x8Mb + 4x16Mb buffering method.
(550d Sandisk extreme pro 95 mb/s).
Some actual test results
#347
My results with variable buffering compared to xaint's build 1x8Mb + 4x16Mb method:

res            fps               fr.xaint          fr.variable     boost       

1280x536   23.976 fps      164               236               44%
1280x536   23 fps            184               276               50%

1280x512   23.976 fps      196               303               54%
1280x512   23 fps            238               364               53%

1152x482   23.976 fps      739               1157             56%

Screenshots:
[spoiler]



[/spoiler]

A1ex, this theory actually works indeed.

#348
Yes, the method of 8Mb+15Mb+15Mb+16Mb+16Mb gives me 164 frames with 1280x536 at 23.976 fps for now. It's quite a step forward.

For example, recently i could get only 192 frames at 1152x482 at 24fps, now it is more than 730 (usually 739).
#349
These two last records doesn't work in photo mode.
But previous one was able to get as much as twice more frames compared to movie mode. What is the reason for that?
#350
Quote from: a1ex on June 18, 2013, 02:49:51 PM
So you have noticed a consistent slowdown of 0.1 MB/s? I don't think this is enough to jump to the conclusion that the latest build is any slower.
Well, for me 68 frames vs 386 is significant slow down indeed. In terms of real usability, but not the inner figures and values. Just facts for my setup (camera/card), no offence intended.