 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi folks.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is the first time I have *ever* posted
in this particular list... Anyway, getting to the point - I have been
creating animations with POV-Ray for a while now. However, I have just
started on my most ambitious POV-Ray project *EVER*. (Prepair to be
unimpressed.)
I have decided to make a video to go with one of my favourite tunes from The
Prodigy. After much deliberation, I selected "No Good (Start the Dance)"
from their 1994 album "Music for the Jilted Generation". (It's track 9 if
anyone has the CD.)
This big undertaking has brought me up against certain technological
limitations. (Oh, and artistic ones - specifically, I'm crap. But there's
not much anyone here can do about that part!)
I didn't think this project would get off the ground, because I thought I
would never ever ever get the sound and video to synch. But - amazingly - it
was easy! (Err... well, it was easy once I got my maths right! I couldn't
figure out why increasing the BPM figure made the video run slower... I had
of course got the numerator and denominator THE WRONG WAY ROUND! Ooops...)
I wasn't sure if I actually had the software to join video and sound
together, but it appears I have. My process is this: First, get POV-Ray to
produce some frames. (Obviously.) The frames are output as 640x480 TARGA (or
320x240 for tests). Next, I use VirtualDub to join all the frames into an
uncompressed AVI. If this is 320x240, it's directly playable. But Micro$oft
Media Player won't play 640x480 uncompressed, so the final stage is to use
TMPGEnc to compress the video (and add the soundtrack from an uncompressed
.WAV file ripped directly from the CD). This will then play.
Does that make sense?
POV-Ray -> still frames (TARGA, 640x480, 24 bits/pixel, 25 frames/second)
still frames -> VirtualDub -> AVI (uncompressed, no sound yet)
AVI + WAV -> TMPGEnc -> MPEG-1, audio is layer-II at 192 kbits/second
OK, so hopefully I'm not the only person in this list to use these
programs... (cos if I am... oh dear.)
I have currently created about 48 seconds of moving video (28 seconds is
"finished", the rest needs tinkering with). But I did a test run at 640x480
to see if my computer can cope with it. It can't.
First, the complete track is about 6 minutes long. TMPGEnc helpfully informs
me that I need to generate 9,447 frames. Well, it turns out that (depending
on detail) 9,447 frames of RLE TARGA takes up roughtly 6GB. So I have to put
the frames on another partition.
Next, I hadn't noticed this, but all my partitions are FAT32. And apparently
this filesystem does not permit a single file to be larger than 4GB.
(Actually, I didn't think you could have a PARTITION larger than 4GB with
FAT... anyone care to explain?) So I need a harddrive with NTFS on it
(which, unless I'm mistaken, has no such limitation).
I have spare harddrives laying around with sufficient capacity. (They're
IDE.) But my computer is a laptop. It is possible to attach an external
harddrive to a laptop? What gear do I need to do that? Alternatively, I
could fit them to my dad's PC and use the LAN I set up - essentially just
use dad's PC as a fileserver. But while our NICs are 100mbit, the hub is
only 10mbit. Will this speed limit file throughput? (Last I checked, POV-Ray
won't start rendering one frame until the last one is saved.) Or I could
store the frames on my laptop and assembly them on dad's PC...
Next, TMPGEnc seems to do strange things if you tell it to stop part way
through. (The audio is 6 minutes, I have about 48 seconds of video so far.
I'm only doing tests, but I *need* to check that the video matches the
sound.) Sometimes the soundtrack finishes before the video - any idea why?
Also, sometimes Media Player struggles to play back the video - sound and
movement are intermittent. Any ideas? Neither of these seem to happen if I
generate a full 6 minutes of video (which I can only do at 320x240 because
of the above).
Also, TMPGEnc seems to halve the resolution of the video. OK, *some* of the
video - specifically, the frames where there's a lot happening. I presume
this is because there's too much data to fit. I have it set for "automatic
VBR" (variable bitrate?), with quality = 100 and maximum bitrate = 35,000. I
did have it higher... Presumably if I set it too high I will exceed the
transfer rate of my harddrive - anyone know what that's likely to be?
(Maxtor 20GB, if that makes a difference.) I presume it is IO rather than
MPEG decompression that is the limiting factor?
(While we're on the subject... does anyone know what the GOP struction and
Quantinize Matrix options are all about?)
On the latest part of the animation, the movements I've programmed seem to
be beyong the temporal resolution of the system - that is, it seems to
require more than 25 frames / second. I notice Virtual Dub has a "motion
blur" option. Can I render, say, 100 times more frames than I need and get
Virtual Dub to blend them together to give the correct frame rate with nice
smoothing? Or can't that be done? If it can, how? And will it be worth it?
Is 100 too much / too little?
Thanks folks!
In case anyone is interested...
The basic concept for the video is a space ship flying around through space.
OK, so actually at the moment it's a smoothed triangle. (I said I was crap!)
It's the CSG union of 1 prism, 3 cylinders, and 3 spheres. And it's
metallic. Obviously there's the obligatory star field too. The tune features
a very charicteristic, highly-flanged base sound. For this reason, I've
given the ship a "warp cloud" (basically a pretty glowy plasma thingy
suffounding it) which appears in time with that baseline.
Finally - the bit I'm currently working on - the idea is that when the
drumbeat starts up, you see the ship flying through a tunnel. The original
idea was to have a twisty-turny tunnel, with the ship weaving and ducking
round corners in time to the thundering bass. But, alas, this is too
complicated for me to program! So instead, I planned to settle for straight
tunnel, which I have now made. (It's an isosurface - a cylinder with a
little f_bozo() added. Looks a bit too boring tho...)
In keeping with the original tunnel plan, I wanted to have the ship jiggling
around, as if the drumbeat were generating some powerful invisible force and
the ship was struggling to stay in a straight line. Oh, and I wanted the
camera angle to give the impression that the camera was on the back of a
model airplane following along side, but being hampered by some nutter
smacking it with a 2 lb lump hammer in time with the music. (Or maybe the
camera dude is just drunk.)
Now... EXPLAIN THAT TO POV-RAY!!!
This is the part I'm currently struggling with. It's very hard to make
things "jiggle" in a way that matches the rythem but looks natural. Oh, and
being The Prodigy, the beat doesn't go "boom, boom, boom, boom"... actually
it goes something like "boom chi-chi-boom, boom chi-chi boom-bah, boom,
boom-ting, boom BAH!" I actually had to fire up Audacity and slow the bugger
down to 75% of normal playback speed just to figure out what the hell that
drumbeat does... and then, after I designed a nice visual, I realised it's
too complicated to see at normal playback speed. *sigh*
So anyway, at the end of all this I should have a 40MB MPEG file, if anyone
wants to see it... (Obviously I'd have to give it to ya minus the sound, so
don't even apply unless you have the CD to go with ;-) Oh, and is there a
tool that can put the sound back into an MPEG? :-|
Thanks.
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry but I only read halfway through your message until it occurred to
me that your problem is diskspace because you woant to use uncompressed
AVI. I don't see why you would want that. VirtualDub can compile frames
to better usable formats (compressed) and as far as I know it can also
add sound from a WAV file. (I haven't tried that though, I wanted to add
sound from a midi file to an animation and that it can't do).
Perhaps I was missing the point, but what you're planning on doing
should be possible without having to use 6GB files.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternet com> wrote in
news:3f6dff29@news.povray.org:
>
> Next, TMPGEnc seems to do strange things if you tell it to stop part
> way through. (The audio is 6 minutes, I have about 48 seconds of video
> so far. I'm only doing tests, but I *need* to check that the video
> matches the sound.) Sometimes the soundtrack finishes before the video
> - any idea why? Also, sometimes Media Player struggles to play back
> the video - sound and movement are intermittent. Any ideas? Neither of
> these seem to happen if I generate a full 6 minutes of video (which I
> can only do at 320x240 because of the above).
>
Also use Audacity to trim the audio length to match the video length.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> POV-Ray -> still frames (TARGA, 640x480, 24 bits/pixel, 25 frames/second)
> still frames -> VirtualDub -> AVI (uncompressed, no sound yet)
> AVI + WAV -> TMPGEnc -> MPEG-1, audio is layer-II at 192 kbits/second
Why would you use such an old and inefficient format as MPEG-1?
When you have the AVI, you can use VirtualDub to save it to another
AVI but using whatever MPEG-4 codec you may have (DivX, for example).
You will get a lot smaller file with better quality. Also, as for sound,
you can encode in mp3 format.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sorry but I only read halfway through your message
LOL - that's quite ok. (Can't believe I typed 8KB of text... man!)
> until it occurred to
> me that your problem is diskspace because you woant to use uncompressed
> AVI. I don't see why you would want that. VirtualDub can compile frames
> to better usable formats (compressed) and as far as I know it can also
> add sound from a WAV file. (I haven't tried that though, I wanted to add
> sound from a midi file to an animation and that it can't do).
> Perhaps I was missing the point, but what you're planning on doing
> should be possible without having to use 6GB files.
Yes, I believe VirtualDub can add the sound...
Clearly I've been trying the wrong codecs... Every one I try results in
extremly poor quality video. (Haven't tried DivX - I would imagine I don't
have the ability to encode, only decode. Haven't checked tho.) MPEG-I is a
very common, widely supported format, and it doesn't seem to mangle the
video too much. (The sound appears to be identical - kinda impressive. I'm
pretty sure it IS being compressed...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > POV-Ray -> still frames (TARGA, 640x480, 24 bits/pixel, 25
> > frames/second) still frames -> VirtualDub -> AVI (uncompressed, no
> > sound yet) AVI + WAV -> TMPGEnc -> MPEG-1, audio is layer-II at 192
> > kbits/second
> >
>
> - Use png instead and save a lot of disk space
> with no image quality loss.
Yeah, PNG is goooooood. But last I checked, VirtualDub doesn't support it.
> - Get the png vfapi plugin from p.b.u
Erm... huh???
> - Skip the virtual dub avi step and use
> tmpenc directly with the png files
Didn't know TMPGEnc can work on single frames... I thought it only encodes
AVIs?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Next, TMPGEnc seems to do strange things if you tell it to stop part
> > way through. (The audio is 6 minutes, I have about 48 seconds of video
> > so far. I'm only doing tests, but I *need* to check that the video
> > matches the sound.) Sometimes the soundtrack finishes before the video
> > - any idea why? Also, sometimes Media Player struggles to play back
> > the video - sound and movement are intermittent. Any ideas? Neither of
> > these seem to happen if I generate a full 6 minutes of video (which I
> > can only do at 320x240 because of the above).
>
> Also use Audacity to trim the audio length to match the video length.
In the final version, both will be the same length, so it won't matter. I
might well use Audacity to trim it for the tests though...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Andrew Coppin <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> > POV-Ray -> still frames (TARGA, 640x480, 24 bits/pixel, 25
frames/second)
> > still frames -> VirtualDub -> AVI (uncompressed, no sound yet)
> > AVI + WAV -> TMPGEnc -> MPEG-1, audio is layer-II at 192 kbits/second
>
> Why would you use such an old and inefficient format as MPEG-1?
What else is there?
> When you have the AVI, you can use VirtualDub to save it to another
> AVI but using whatever MPEG-4 codec you may have (DivX, for example).
> You will get a lot smaller file with better quality.
Not last time I tried it... Well, ok, *way* smaller file... but *terrible*
image quality.
>Also, as for sound,
> you can encode in mp3 format.
Yeah, I know that, but I'm wondering if that might affect the timing (and
hence mess up the synchronisation with the video). Anyway, once it is joined
to the video, it's up to what the combined format can handle... (The sound
is only 65MB anyway; not exactly huge, is it?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> Not last time I tried it... Well, ok, *way* smaller file... but *terrible*
> image quality.
You don't have to compress with the default bitrate. You can bump up
the bitrate until it looks good. You will still get a lot smaller file.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Not last time I tried it... Well, ok, *way* smaller file... but
*terrible*
> > image quality.
>
> You don't have to compress with the default bitrate. You can bump up
> the bitrate until it looks good. You will still get a lot smaller file.
Didn't see anywhere to adjust that... I was a "quality" setting, with I set
to 100% (despite being warned that 90% would probably be as good). Still
looked aweful! I'll have another look at it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> Didn't see anywhere to adjust that... I was a "quality" setting, with I set
> to 100% (despite being warned that 90% would probably be as good). Still
> looked aweful! I'll have another look at it...
If you are using for example the DivX5 codec, then in virtualdub
you can select Video -> Compression... -> DivX whatever -> Configure
It will pop up the DivX configuration dialog which, among other things,
has an "Encoding bitrate" slider. Set it to something like 3000 kbps or
more and that should be plenty enough.
Other codecs (such as Xvid) have similar configuration dialogs.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3f6f6192@news.povray.org...
> Andrew Coppin <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> > Didn't see anywhere to adjust that... I was a "quality" setting, with I
set
> > to 100% (despite being warned that 90% would probably be as good). Still
> > looked aweful! I'll have another look at it...
>
> If you are using for example the DivX5 codec, then in virtualdub
> you can select Video -> Compression... -> DivX whatever -> Configure
> It will pop up the DivX configuration dialog which, among other things,
> has an "Encoding bitrate" slider. Set it to something like 3000 kbps or
> more and that should be plenty enough.
> Other codecs (such as Xvid) have similar configuration dialogs.
I just tried using a codec listed as "Intel Indeo Video 4.5". The
configuration box doesn't let you select a bitrate - or anything much else
really - but I set the "quality" setting to "best". The resulting video
(with no sound at present) is about 500KB smaller than the MPEG-I (which
includes the audio). The star field doesn't look too bad I suppose - leaves
little "trails" behind. But when you get the the tunnel, it looks like a
badly tuned RF signal or something! It's just nasty...
Then I tried using something called "Cinepack Codec by Radius". This gives
me no controls at all, other than selecting colour or BW. The result was
18MB instead of 8MB (MPEG-I), and the starfield looked *terrible*! The black
wasn't even black, it was light grey! And there were bits of things left all
over the place... Interestingly, the tunnel sequence actually looked rather
good though... Weird!
For reference, I appear to have the following codecs...
Cinepack Codec by Radius
DivX 5.0.2 Codec
Indeo video 5.10
Intel 4:2:0 Video V2.50 (doesn't work)
Intel Indeo Video R3.2
Intel Indeo Video 4.5
Intel IYUV codec
Microsoft H.261 Video Codec (doesn't work)
Microsoft H.263 Video Codec (doesn't work)
Microsoft RLE (doesn't work)
Microsoft Video 1
Thanks.
PS. Notice how all the Microsoft codecs don't work? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
:)
You used some old codecs that should work for most purposes but not for
raytraced animations where you *care* about every pixel. Still, you have
to be a little bit less caring because in the end, when you finish with
a 100+Mb video you'll need a fast system to be able to play it smoothly.
So it's finding the right balalnce between file size and image quality
(can you tell I've been struggling with this for days quite recently?).
Divx would probably be your best option. You can also set the
compression level for sound and get quite a lot out of that without
losing much of the sound quality - especially with the Prodigy, perhaps.
;)
But again: you'll have to let go of the pixel precision. For moving
images this often isn't very relevant for the average user anyway.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in
news:3f6f6946$1@news.povray.org:
> For reference, I appear to have the following codecs...
> Cinepack Codec by Radius
> DivX 5.0.2 Codec
> Indeo video 5.10
> Intel 4:2:0 Video V2.50 (doesn't work)
> Intel Indeo Video R3.2
> Intel Indeo Video 4.5
> Intel IYUV codec
> Microsoft H.261 Video Codec (doesn't work)
> Microsoft H.263 Video Codec (doesn't work)
> Microsoft RLE (doesn't work)
> Microsoft Video 1
>
> Thanks.
>
> PS. Notice how all the Microsoft codecs don't work? ;-)
Try the DivX 5.0.2 Codec as Warp mentioned.
--
Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca
Montreal, CANADA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> I just tried using a codec listed as "Intel Indeo Video 4.5".
AFAIK that's not an MPEG-4 codec (nor any MPEG codec at all) and thus
not a very good one.
> Then I tried using something called "Cinepack Codec by Radius".
That isn't either.
> For reference, I appear to have the following codecs...
> DivX 5.0.2 Codec
Then use that, as I suggested.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f6f6946$1@news.povray.org> , "Andrew Coppin"
<orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> I just tried using a codec listed as "Intel Indeo Video 4.5". The
> configuration box doesn't let you select a bitrate
Do you know how ancient and outdated the Intel Indeo codecs are? The first
hit searching in Google for the quoted string "Intel Indeo Video 4.5" will
give you a hint ... and as of Windows XP SP 1, even Microsoft dropped it out
of the system completely! The codec has been _outdated_ at least five years
ago now...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f6f853b@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> I just tried using a codec listed as "Intel Indeo Video 4.5".
>
> AFAIK that's not an MPEG-4 codec (nor any MPEG codec at all) and thus
> not a very good one.
Indeed, it is an Intel codec with a copyright 1994-1998 (thus it was last
updated 1998!) according to the About Box of the codec as it can be seen in
VirtualDub!
>> Then I tried using something called "Cinepack Codec by Radius".
>
> That isn't either.
Indeed, a codec last updated 1995...
>> For reference, I appear to have the following codecs...
>> DivX 5.0.2 Codec
>
> Then use that, as I suggested.
Alternatively, there are a bunch of ports of ffmpeg to various platforms and
systems (but do not use ffvfw, that is outdated!), even if he doesn't want
to compile it on Windows: <http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/index.org.html>
BTW, the MPEG-4 codecs that come with some versions of Windos should *not*
be used because they are also outdated and have nothing to do with the
actual MPEG-4 standard supported by modern media players ...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > I just tried using a codec listed as "Intel Indeo Video 4.5". The
> > configuration box doesn't let you select a bitrate
>
> Do you know how ancient and outdated the Intel Indeo codecs are?
Erm... No.
> The first
> hit searching in Google for the quoted string "Intel Indeo Video 4.5" will
> give you a hint ...
I take it from that it's old? (And, therefore, poor quality.)
> and as of Windows XP SP 1, even Microsoft dropped it out
> of the system completely! The codec has been _outdated_ at least five
years
> ago now...
Interestingly, Windows XP SP1 happens to be what I've got... so where the
heck did I get these codecs from? Hmm... weird!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > I just tried using a codec listed as "Intel Indeo Video 4.5".
>
> AFAIK that's not an MPEG-4 codec (nor any MPEG codec at all) and thus
> not a very good one.
What's an MPEG-4 codec when it's at home? I thought a codec is a codec...
> > For reference, I appear to have the following codecs...
> > DivX 5.0.2 Codec
>
> Then use that, as I suggested.
I was under the (mistaken?) impression that there are legal restrictions on
the use of DivX...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> > > I just tried using a codec listed as "Intel Indeo Video 4.5". The
> > > configuration box doesn't let you select a bitrate
> >
> > Do you know how ancient and outdated the Intel Indeo codecs are?
>
> Erm... No.
>
> > The first
> > hit searching in Google for the quoted string "Intel Indeo Video 4.5" will
> > give you a hint ...
>
> I take it from that it's old? (And, therefore, poor quality.)
>
> > and as of Windows XP SP 1, even Microsoft dropped it out
> > of the system completely! The codec has been _outdated_ at least five
> years
> > ago now...
>
> Interestingly, Windows XP SP1 happens to be what I've got... so where the
> heck did I get these codecs from? Hmm... weird!
I have access to two XP systems, one did have the codec (the older one)
the other didn't. This is a developer's nightmare, especially if you try
to avoid installing codecs along with your application. It seems that it
that last thing is unrealistic to hope for...
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3F715D07.7AEFED32@onwijs.com> , Remco de Korte
<rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote:
>> Interestingly, Windows XP SP1 happens to be what I've got... so where the
>> heck did I get these codecs from? Hmm... weird!
>
> I have access to two XP systems, one did have the codec (the older one)
> the other didn't. This is a developer's nightmare, especially if you try
> to avoid installing codecs along with your application. It seems that it
> that last thing is unrealistic to hope for...
If you have software (aka games) that use these ancient codecs, chances are
the software also accesses hardware directly. Hence, it wouldn't run
anyway. Or do you really want your operating system to get more bloated
with useless outdated junk codecs than it already is?
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote:
> What's an MPEG-4 codec when it's at home? I thought a codec is a codec...
That's like saying that an image format is an image format... You certainly
can tell the difference between, for example, an image in BMP format and
in JPEG format?
And you probably can tell the difference between a WAV file and an MP3
file?
An MPEG-4 codec is a codec which implements (all or part of) the MPEG-4
standard.
The version 4 of the MPEG standard is more developed and then the
version 2 (which eg. DVDs use), which is more developed than the
version 1 (which is what most .mpg files are).
Typically MPEG-4 compresses video to something like 1/4 or 1/8 of the
size of the equivalent MPEG-1 video (with the same visual quality).
Another advantage of MPEG-4 is that the compression quality is not
highly dependant of the image resolution (unlike in MPEG-1 where
doubling the resolution invariably doubles the size of the file).
(In fact, increasing the resolution increases the quality of the video
at the same bitrate. I know this from experience.)
> I was under the (mistaken?) impression that there are legal restrictions on
> the use of DivX...
What legal restrictions?
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> In article <3F715D07.7AEFED32@onwijs.com> , Remco de Korte
> <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote:
>
> >> Interestingly, Windows XP SP1 happens to be what I've got... so where the
> >> heck did I get these codecs from? Hmm... weird!
> >
> > I have access to two XP systems, one did have the codec (the older one)
> > the other didn't. This is a developer's nightmare, especially if you try
> > to avoid installing codecs along with your application. It seems that it
> > that last thing is unrealistic to hope for...
>
> If you have software (aka games) that use these ancient codecs, chances are
> the software also accesses hardware directly. Hence, it wouldn't run
> anyway. Or do you really want your operating system to get more bloated
> with useless outdated junk codecs than it already is?
>
> Thorsten
>
This isn't really about MY operating system. I'm just looking for a way
to make sure that a movie file will play on as many (windows) systems as
possible, preferrable all that haven't be tampered with too much.
Besides, I don't think current OS's will get bloated much more by a
couple of old codecs. These codecs are miniscule compared to all the
redundant functionality that comes with XP for instance. But that's
beside the point :)
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f71da21@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Typically MPEG-4 compresses video to something like 1/4 or 1/8 of the
> size of the equivalent MPEG-1 video (with the same visual quality).
Here is what three of the ISO committee members who developed H.264 (aka
MPEG-4 AVC) reported (get the report on http://bs.hhi.de/~wiegand/JVT.html)
as the "Average bit-rate savings compared with various prior "decoding
schemes", which is about equivalent to the size reduction of the result
video stream, but not taking into account the audio stream:
Codec MPEG-4 ASP H.263 HLP MPEG-2
H.264/AVC 38.62% 48.80% 64.46%
MPEG-4 ASP - 16.65% 42.95%
H.263 HLP - - 30.61%
And this is summarized by them as "Although not discussed in this article,
the bit-rates for TV or HD video (at broadcast and DVD quality) are reduced
by a factor of between 2.25 and 2.5 - when using H.264/AVC coding."
For reference, notice that MEPG-2 at CIF (352*288 pixels) size results in
about the same datarate as an MPEG-1 datastream. Or in short, MEPG-2 does
not offer much of an advantage over MPEG-1 at the *same* resolution. This
is not really surprising as the MPEG-2 encoding is a superset of the MEPG-1
encoding. The main advantage of MPEG-2 is that it specifies much higher
resolutions of up to 1920*1152 at 30 non-interlaced (aka progressive) frames
per second, which then yield a datastream of about 80 MBit/s!
On the other hand, the original intend of MEPG-4 (without AVC) was to
provide a lower-resolution way of transmitting high-quality video data over
low-bandwidth connections. hence, it is not absolutely correct to say
MEPG-4 is "more developed" than MEPG-2, it is simply better targeted for a
different application domain.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3F72C11E.A02E1940@onwijs.com> , Remco de Korte
<rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote:
> This isn't really about MY operating system. I'm just looking for a way
> to make sure that a movie file will play on as many (windows) systems as
> possible, preferrable all that haven't be tampered with too much.
I understand, but I would suggest to simply not use codecs that old for
anything new even if they are most likely on many systems. In five years
they will be gone for sure once M$ has once again changed all its APIs...
> Besides, I don't think current OS's will get bloated much more by a
> couple of old codecs. These codecs are miniscule compared to all the
> redundant functionality that comes with XP for instance. But that's
> beside the point :)
True :-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> hence, it is not absolutely correct to say
> MEPG-4 is "more developed" than MEPG-2, it is simply better targeted for a
> different application domain.
I see.
I have to admit I don't know too much about MPEG-2 and how it differs
from MPEG-1.
However, from my experience I can say that MPEG-4 differs from MPEG-1
by an enormous amount. Some important differences I know of:
- In MPEG-1 the types of frames are fixed to a certain pattern
(eg. IBBBPBBBPBBB) regardless of the movie contents. In MPEG-4
keyframes can be located anywhere (and are usually located at
places where they are most needed, ie. where the image changes
a lot).
- In MPEG-1 the image is divided into fixed-sizes squares which are
compressed in a similar way as JPEG. In MPEG-4 the image is divided
into completely free-shaped parts.
- The MPEG-1 format supports only a very limited amount of frame rates
(I really don't understand why). In MPEG-4 it's completely free.
- AFAIK the quality of MPEG-1 is highly dependant on the resolution
of the video. That is, a larger resolution needs a larger bitrate
to preserve the same image quality. In MPEG-4, however, image
resolution is irrelevant: Video resolution doesn't matter, you
can always compress to the same bitrate and get about the same
image quality. In fact, if you use a larger resolution, the image
quality will increase, not decrease, at the same bitrate (this is
from empirical experience; I don't have any technical proof of this).
- A 200 Megs MPEG-1 will compress to something like 50 Megs MPEG-4
with no important decrease in image quality. (Again, by empirical
experience.)
In the same way, if you try to make an MPEG-1 with the same file size
as the MPEG-4, the image (and sound) quality will be highly degraded.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in
news:3f6f4b76$1@news.povray.org:
>> - Get the png vfapi plugin from p.b.u
>
> Erm... huh???
>
This is a must have for every pov animator.
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.utilities/15796/
>
> Didn't know TMPGEnc can work on single frames... I thought it only
> encodes AVIs?
>
>
It works wonderfully with stills. You choose which frame to start at
instead of an avi file.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Didn't know TMPGEnc can work on single frames... I thought it only
> > encodes AVIs?
>
> It works wonderfully with stills. You choose which frame to start at
> instead of an avi file.
Oh right... will have to try that then!
> >> - Get the png vfapi plugin from p.b.u
> >
> > Erm... huh???
>
> This is a must have for every pov animator.
>
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.utilities/15796/
Doesn't seem to have the binary... Looks useful though! Tell me, without
this pluggin, what file types can TMPGEnc already read?
Thanks.
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f731503@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I see.
> I have to admit I don't know too much about MPEG-2 and how it differs
> from MPEG-1.
Every MPEG-2 decoder is also a fully functional MPEG-1 decoder.
> However, from my experience I can say that MPEG-4 differs from MPEG-1
> by an enormous amount. Some important differences I know of:
>
> - In MPEG-1 the types of frames are fixed to a certain pattern
> (eg. IBBBPBBBPBBB) regardless of the movie contents. In MPEG-4
> keyframes can be located anywhere (and are usually located at
> places where they are most needed, ie. where the image changes
> a lot).
>
> - In MPEG-1 the image is divided into fixed-sizes squares which are
> compressed in a similar way as JPEG. In MPEG-4 the image is divided
> into completely free-shaped parts.
Which doesn't mean it isn't turned into squares again. Almost every
compression based on the DCT uses the 8*8 DCT (the DV standard allows a
special variation of the 8*8 DCT to produce better results with interlaced
input data). This common DCT size is also why transcoding, especially from
DV to MPEG-2 (and back) is so fast. The DCT step can be completely skipped.
> - The MPEG-1 format supports only a very limited amount of frame rates
> (I really don't understand why). In MPEG-4 it's completely free.
>
> - AFAIK the quality of MPEG-1 is highly dependant on the resolution
> of the video. That is, a larger resolution needs a larger bitrate
> to preserve the same image quality.
The codec algorithms simply don't depend on the frame dimensions, thus one
can of course mess around with this, but if the codec at the same time
restricts the MEPG-1 bitrate, you of course the low quality results.
One interesting side-note here should be how both MPEG-2 as well as DV (you
know the format you find on all digital video cameras as of last year, Sony
is now pushing I-frame only MPEG-2 to sell new gear, the least in the
semiprofessional product range above about US$2K) handle the aspect ratio.
If you buy a "widescreen" DVD, you don't somehow get more data, all you get
is a differently scaled image. On a DVD the frame resolution is always the
MEPG-2 main profile, which is 720*480 for NTSC and 720*576 for PAL. To make
a 16:9 aspect ratio out of this, the frames are simply scaled. Due to the
"interpolation"-like nature of the DCT one doesn't notice. Much like one
doesn't notice a VHS tape only can store about 240 pixels horizantal
resolution (the thing you find as "240 lines" or something similar in your
VCRs datasheet).
Anyway, knowing that the resolution is only 720*480 for NTSC and 720*576 for
PAL is important when making a backup copy of a DVD as for optimal results
one wants to use ie.e 240 for NTSC or 288 for PAL, especially when making
the backup copy with MPEG-4.
> In MPEG-4, however, image
> resolution is irrelevant: Video resolution doesn't matter, you
> can always compress to the same bitrate and get about the same
> image quality. In fact, if you use a larger resolution, the image
> quality will increase, not decrease, at the same bitrate (this is
> from empirical experience; I don't have any technical proof of this).
The main benefit of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 is that they offer good support for
varioable bitrate encoding. How effective the variable bitrate encoding is
can be seen whenever you have a film with a long flight over a diverse
ground, i.e. a city or diverse landscape. These scenes also make a great
test case for codec capabilities.
> - A 200 Megs MPEG-1 will compress to something like 50 Megs MPEG-4
> with no important decrease in image quality. (Again, by empirical
> experience.)
Notice that this also to a major part depends on the MPEG-1 codec you use.
There are really *serious* differences between MPEG codecs (regardless if
this is MPEG 1, 2, 4 etc, also ture for i.e. JPEG and DV). All these
compression standards have one thing in common: They do *not* define the
details of the algorithms to be used. They only define a format of the
encoded data and how to interpret it. That is why a simply software MEPG-2
relatime encoder will probably produce low quality, high bitrate video while
an advanced, hardware accelerated reatime encoder will produce a muss lower
bitrate and a much higher quality. At the same resolution! On the other
hand, a "slow" multipass software encoder can usually produce significantly
better results but taking a lot more time (than realtime).
> In the same way, if you try to make an MPEG-1 with the same file size
> as the MPEG-4, the image (and sound) quality will be highly degraded.
Of course. For good summary about all this, also try
<http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/research/mpeg/faq/mpeg2-v38/faq_v38.html#tag54>
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> In article <3F72C11E.A02E1940@onwijs.com> , Remco de Korte
> <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote:
>
> > This isn't really about MY operating system. I'm just looking for a way
> > to make sure that a movie file will play on as many (windows) systems as
> > possible, preferrable all that haven't be tampered with too much.
>
> I understand, but I would suggest to simply not use codecs that old for
> anything new even if they are most likely on many systems. In five years
> they will be gone for sure once M$ has once again changed all its APIs...
>
You seem to know a lot about this :)
(more then me, but that doesn't say much)
What I wonder is: with all the different codecs around and the trouble
that is causing, is the size of the codec really such a big problem?
Wouldn't it for instance be ideal if the codec was incorporated in the
moviefile itself? Would this be at all possible? Is it possible to use a
codec if it isn't already installed?
Cheers!
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What I wonder is: with all the different codecs around and the trouble
> that is causing, is the size of the codec really such a big problem?
> Wouldn't it for instance be ideal if the codec was incorporated in the
> moviefile itself? Would this be at all possible? Is it possible to use a
> codec if it isn't already installed?
Mmm... that sounds good... until you start to think about the fact that you
would need a different implementation of the program for each type of
hardware / operating system, etc...
(There's alwaysd JAVA I suppose ;-)
((I'm JOKING by the way!))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in news:3f7552c0$1
@news.povray.org:
>
> Doesn't seem to have the binary... Looks useful though! Tell me, without
> this pluggin, what file types can TMPGEnc already read?
>
> Thanks.
> Andrew.
>
>
>
It's there. I just doublechecked. In the bottom of the first message it
has:
Attachments:
Download 'vfpng.zip' (78 KB)
TMPGEnc will use .BMP by default.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Doesn't seem to have the binary... Looks useful though! Tell me, without
> > this pluggin, what file types can TMPGEnc already read?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Andrew.
>
> It's there. I just doublechecked. In the bottom of the first message it
> has:
>
> Attachments:
> Download 'vfpng.zip' (78 KB)
Yeah, you're right. I guess I'm just blind today :-/
> TMPGEnc will use .BMP by default.
Right... (No WAY I'm trying THAT!)
Thanks.
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in
news:3f75c53d$1@news.povray.org:
>>
>> Attachments:
>> Download 'vfpng.zip' (78 KB)
>
> Yeah, you're right. I guess I'm just blind today :-/
>
Hope it addresses your space issues satisfactorily.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also sprach "Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> -- Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:39:47
+0100:
>Does that make sense?
>
>POV-Ray -> still frames (TARGA, 640x480, 24 bits/pixel, 25 frames/second)
>still frames -> VirtualDub -> AVI (uncompressed, no sound yet)
>AVI + WAV -> TMPGEnc -> MPEG-1, audio is layer-II at 192 kbits/second
>
>OK, so hopefully I'm not the only person in this list to use these
>programs... (cos if I am... oh dear.)
>
>I have currently created about 48 seconds of moving video (28 seconds is
>"finished", the rest needs tinkering with). But I did a test run at 640x480
>to see if my computer can cope with it. It can't.
>
>First, the complete track is about 6 minutes long. TMPGEnc helpfully informs
>me that I need to generate 9,447 frames. Well, it turns out that (depending
>on detail) 9,447 frames of RLE TARGA takes up roughtly 6GB. So I have to put
>the frames on another partition.
I, too, am working on an "epic"; about 16:43 long.
I selected a music piece that i recorded years ago. I really wanted to do a
Frank Zappa piece, but what with copyrights i thought i'd stick with something
i own.
I currently have 3 scenes "complete", about 8 minutes. I find it easiest to
work with about 3000 frames at a time.
I am rendering 720x480 .png frames.
I use TMPGEnc to build a .m2v out of my .png frames.
Yes, i am using MPEG2. I know Warp is hot and bothered for MPEG4, but i have
never made an MPEG4 that i was really happy with.
Plus, i can burn the MPEG2 to DVD which MPEG4 can not do. It is nice to be able
to play my animation on The Big Screen, and the DVD should make fine Christmas
presents (maybe in 2006 when i finish this). :)
I used CDex to extract the .wav audio in scene-size pieces, so i can work on
smaller sections at a time.
I use Ulead VideoStudio 7 (came with my ATI card) to stitch the scenes together.
The important thing here is that the scenes are not re-rendered during
stitching. VirtualDub will force a re-render because it has to break down the
IBP GOPs [1] into individual frames which will add additional loss/noise to the
video. I believe you can use TMPGEnc to stitch scenes together without
re-rendering; i haven't tried that yet.
If you have a DVD player on your computer, then you got WinDVD with it, which
installs the codecs to play MPEG2 in Media Player. You will have to pay for the
MPEG2 version of TMPGEnc.
In addition to the DVD version, i have also created a VCD version of my
animation (352x240 NTSC) which also can be played on The Big Screen, but
obviously doesn't look as nice. The advantage is the free version of TMPGEnc
will make these, and then (free) VCDEasy will make the disc from your .mpg .
Another nice tool i'm using is ACDSee Classic 2.43 . This is great for
previewing the images as a pseudo-animation. It can do about 50ms per frame,
which is not full speed but close enough. And the mouse wheel can roll back and
forth between frames/images which is great for motion debugging.
And of course, my own renderfarm manager.
The first thing you can do for yourself though is dump the .tga in favor of .png
files. Here's some of my sizes (for 720x480 frames)
dir files size
ttco 3676 174MB
tteo 3926 575MB
ttho 2707 291MB (this scene is rendering to 3340 frames)
ttfo 0 0 (Hmm, i must have deleted these frames after mpg encoding)
If you do go with MPEG2, remember that as a europover, you'd want 720x576 25fps.
Storyboard for my animation:
http://cvs.buckosoft.com/Projects/pov/~checkout~/ttCommon/Storyboard.txt?content-type=text/plain
Renderfarm in action:
http://www.buckosoft.com/bsac/
[1] GOP = Group Of Pictures. An I frame is like a jpeg image. B and P frames
are "just the difference" between "this" frame and "the next" frame.
I is lossy, B and P are more lossy. (This is a super simple explanation of
B and P)
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <pnvqnvcg3rb357dgj7o6jl6qtnn1k2kbu5@4ax.com> , Dick Balaska
<dik### [at] seeorganizationfield> wrote:
> I, too, am working on an "epic"; about 16:43 long.
<snip>
> Plus, i can burn the MPEG2 to DVD which MPEG4 can not do. It is nice to be
able
> to play my animation on The Big Screen, and the DVD should make fine Christmas
> presents (maybe in 2006 when i finish this). :)
Hey, that would fit on a mini DVD (1.4 GB) with only 8cm diameter! ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also sprach "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> -- Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:43:39
+0200:
>In article <pnvqnvcg3rb357dgj7o6jl6qtnn1k2kbu5@4ax.com> , Dick Balaska
><dik### [at] seeorganizationfield> wrote:
>
>> I, too, am working on an "epic"; about 16:43 long.
>Hey, that would fit on a mini DVD (1.4 GB) with only 8cm diameter! ;-)
I've been trying DVD on CD, which is *much* cheaper; but only my PC will read
them. :(
Stupid consumer decks apparently don't have good abstraction of the physical
layer vs. the file system layer. (The decks read VCD and CD-audio)
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The first thing you can do for yourself though is dump the .tga in favor
of .png
> files.
Yep, agreed! Just as soon as I figure out how to get either VirtualDub or
TMPGEnc to read PNG, I will loose TARGA forever - and probably save half my
harddrive! I always use PNG for stills, it's just that for animation the
tools currently only read .tga (or Windows Bitmap, but that's just not
funny!) Someone posted a link that I haven't checked out yet, so we'll
see...
Thanks.
Andrew.
PS. Work has stopped on my own little project for a while - lack of spare
time. (Surely every POVer knows *that* feeling??)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
news:3f81b7ab@news.povray.org...
> PS. Work has stopped on my own little project for a while - lack of
spare
> time. (Surely every POVer knows *that* feeling??)
Yep! :)
~Steve~
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > PS. Work has stopped on my own little project for a while - lack of
> > spare time. (Surely every POVer knows *that* feeling??)
>
> Yep! :)
>
> ~Steve~
See! I *knew* I couldn't be the *only* one...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
news:3f81bcdb$1@news.povray.org...
> > > PS. Work has stopped on my own little project for a while - lack
of
> > > spare time. (Surely every POVer knows *that* feeling??)
> >
> > Yep! :)
> >
> > ~Steve~
>
> See! I *knew* I couldn't be the *only* one...
:) Well, RL does get in the way now and again, especially when the
eggs are frying... Sunnyside up... ;)
~Steve~
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
