Im going crazy here! I've tried to make a 20 seconds text animation on a
moving background but the outcome has so far become just HORRIBLE! I've
tried AA on AA off, 25 fps and 50 fps, changed from 640*480 to 800*600.
Zoomed in and zoomed out, not to mention all the different codecs and
various video formats out there... But alas, my effort has so far been in
vain... I would show you the clip, but... let's just say it jitters (yes, i
have jitter off and jitter value 0) and I have no better word than flicks! I
have, so far, been using VideoMach as converter from bmp to avi/mpg. The mpg
result is slightly better, but not satisfying. Please, enlighten me... Im
starting to loose hope I will ever finish this 1:58 minute short video...
:(

Post a reply to this message

"RusHHouR" <gee### [at] mailnu> wrote in message 
news:web.44032a7952dee07847d3ae5e0@news.povray.org...
> Im going crazy here! I've tried to make a 20 seconds text animation on a
> moving background but the outcome has so far become just HORRIBLE! I've
> tried AA on AA off, 25 fps and 50 fps, changed from 640*480 to 800*600.
> Zoomed in and zoomed out, not to mention all the different codecs and
> various video formats out there... But alas, my effort has so far been in
> vain... I would show you the clip, but... let's just say it jitters (yes, 
> i
> have jitter off and jitter value 0) and I have no better word than flicks! 
> I
> have, so far, been using VideoMach as converter from bmp to avi/mpg. The 
> mpg
> result is slightly better, but not satisfying. Please, enlighten me... Im
> starting to loose hope I will ever finish this 1:58 minute short video...
> :(
>

I think we'll maybe need something more by way of a clue.
If I had to take a complete guess based on this little information, I'd say 
it might be to do with a texture applied to a moving background.
If your background is a moving object and you apply a dramatic texture after 
translating or rotating the object (i.e. so that the texture and the object 
don't move together), then you could conceivably generate a very disjointed 
and flickering effect.

Otherwise, is it possible to post a short snippet of code or something to 
illustrate the problem?
Two consecutive still frames illustrating the problem may be an option.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

"RusHHouR" <gee### [at] mailnu> wrote:
> Im going crazy here! I've tried to make a 20 seconds text animation on a
> moving background but the outcome has so far become just HORRIBLE! I've
> tried AA on AA off, 25 fps and 50 fps, changed from 640*480 to 800*600.
> Zoomed in and zoomed out, not to mention all the different codecs and
> various video formats out there... But alas, my effort has so far been in
> vain... I would show you the clip, but... let's just say it jitters (yes, i
> have jitter off and jitter value 0) and I have no better word than flicks! I
> have, so far, been using VideoMach as converter from bmp to avi/mpg. The mpg
> result is slightly better, but not satisfying. Please, enlighten me... Im
> starting to loose hope I will ever finish this 1:58 minute short video...
> :(

It could be that your textures have a random component. Also posting the
animation or a link will allow us to see what is you mean. I can understand



Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thanks fellas.
I managed to get a _somewhat_ better quality, by raising (lowering?) aa to
zero, cranking the bit rate and by viewing with vlc media player.

Where can I post these files then? The two example was 10 and 35 MB, but
they're too big for posting here.

Camera moves along plane, with text scrolling by, it is supposed to pan up
to view the scene and move closer afterwards. But that's next step.

Piece of code:
comand line: +A0.0 -J Jitter_Amount=0 +KI0.0 +KF1.0 +KFI1 +KFF500


camera {
  location  <8, 7.0, -99.99-clock*-5.0>
  direction 1.5*z
  right     x*image_width/image_height
  look_at   <8, 0.2,  -99.99-clock*-5.0> }


text {
  ttf
  "MO.ttf",
   "In a time of chaos and war...     In a place forgotten by man and
gods...     Something unbelievable was about to take place...",
  0.15, 0
scale <0.7,0.7,0.7>
texture { T_Stone28 scale 0.08 rotate <20,10,30>}
finish {ambient 0.75 }
rotate <90,0,0>
translate <16-clock*38,0.1,-99.99-clock*-5.0>
}

Post a reply to this message

And nope, sorry, the texture is not random.
Here a two samples of the frames, for 25 fps.
Original size is 800*600 and original format bmp.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1844/fencetextscene1209is.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8027/fencetextscene1252jj.jpg

I think the problem lies somewhere in the jungle of video encoding... :/

Post a reply to this message

This is a piece of the best outcome so far:
Not as much flicker as before, but not entirely smooth right?

http://d56.yousendit.com/F/0F81CT3PMOD5T3I8JXZFUQDX6J/ttt.mpg

Any wisdoms?

Post a reply to this message

"RusHHouR" <gee### [at] mailnu> wrote:
> And nope, sorry, the texture is not random.
> Here a two samples of the frames, for 25 fps.
> Original size is 800*600 and original format bmp.
>
> http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1844/fencetextscene1209is.jpg
> http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8027/fencetextscene1252jj.jpg
>
> I think the problem lies somewhere in the jungle of video encoding... :/

I ran a test and I get a slight flicker using Antialias_Threshhold= 0.3,
Antialias_Depth=3 and Sampling_method = 2.

I use TMPGEnc to make my animations. It can be found here
http://www.tmpgenc.net/
If you want to use it with png files see
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.utilities/thread/%3C3a82f26c@news.povray.org%3E/


http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.animations/

Post a reply to this message

> Any wisdoms?

Well, what do you expect with such a texture? You do know that most, if not
all, video-codecs subdivide the image into cubes of something like 2x2, 4x4,
8x8 etc.

Depending on the codec, these blocks then get various compression based upon
the color-changes, frequency etc, additionally based upon the change from
frame to frame. With such high frequency noise, you won't get anywhere
decent without an incredible bitrate and insane non-compression. That's at
least how far I've come with Freeware codecs. Divx, Xvid etc might have some
options available for cases as these, but I rarely see such detailed
textures in shorts or movies that I'm not sure even they can do something
about it. It's far more common that the detailed background is *motionless*,
thus requiring just a few frames to build up properly and then stay that
way.

Note that this comment is entirely subjective and based upon my knowledge of
a few different codecs. There might be a codec suited for exactly what
you're after, and uses the proper way to encode it, but generally,
high-noise (as in frequent color-changes from pixel to pixel) is hard to
compress, even for still images, so it's worse in an animation.

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
> > Any wisdoms?
>
> Well, what do you expect with such a texture? You do know that most, if not
> all, video-codecs subdivide the image into cubes of something like 2x2, 4x4,
> 8x8 etc.
>

That sounds a bit hash, for you Tim.
In the snipit RusHHouR posted, it is the text object that is moving and the

I do agree that the texture is not suitable for an animation and he should
use a less noisy one.

Post a reply to this message

> That sounds a bit hash, for you Tim.
> In the snipit RusHHouR posted, it is the text object that is moving and
the
> background is black. I'm rendering the full 500 frames to see it properly.
> I do agree that the texture is not suitable for an animation and he should
> use a less noisy one.

Sorry if it sounded harsh, wasn't the intention. I just saw his MPEG with
the moving background and the moving text. The question was quite honest,
I'm not sure what he'd expect with such a noisy texture. Perhaps the phrase
"you do know..." sounded a bit arrogant. Sorry for that. It's a common
german phrase (at least with the people I know) which, when spoken softly,
implies more a "NOW (because I'm telling you) you know that...". I mean no
harm. :-)

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message