Selur's Little Message Board

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

(24.03.2024, 12:22)Selur Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, post wasn't finished. (Images were just shown without explaination as attachment)

I substitute the last line with

Code:
clip = clipMask.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.RGB24, matrix_in_s="709", range_s="limited", dither_type="error_diffusion")

And I confirm you that the mask is always "white".
I'm planing to write my own motion-mask filter...

Dan

Ah okay.
Something like:

Code:
deviation= 0.05

steps: int = 1

tht =  10

max_steps = max(min(steps, 5), 1)

clip_limited = vs_clip_chroma_stabilizer(clip, deviation=deviation)

for i in range(1, max_steps):

    clip_limited=vs_clip_chroma_stabilizer(clip_limited, deviation=deviation)

# calculate motion mask

org = clip

clipMask = clip

clipMask = clipMask.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.GRAY8, matrix_s="470bg", range_s="limited")

clipMask = vs.core.motionmask.MotionMask(clip=clipMask, th1=tht, th2=tht, tht=tht) # pixels with abs(diff) < tht will be black (static parts)

clipMask = vs.core.std.InvertMask(clip=clipMask) # invert so that static parts are white (weight=1)

# merge in YUV color space       

clipMask = clipMask.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.YUV444PS, matrix_s="470bg", range_s="limited")

clip_limited = clip_limited.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.YUV444PS, matrix_s="470bg", range_s="limited")

clip = clip.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.YUV444PS, matrix_s="470bg", range_s="limited")

clip = vs.core.std.MaskedMerge(clipa=clip, clipb=clip_limited, mask=clipMask) # MotionMask

# restore RBG24 color space

clip = clip.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.RGB24, matrix_in_s="709", range_s="limited", dither_type="error_diffusion")

clipMask = clipMask.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.RGB24, matrix_in_s="709", range_s="limited", dither_type="error_diffusion")

org = org.resize.Bicubic(format=vs.RGB24, matrix_in_s="709", range_s="limited", dither_type="error_diffusion")

clip = core.std.StackVertical([

core.std.StackHorizontal([org.text.Text("Original"), clipMask.text.Text("Mask")]),

core.std.StackHorizontal([clip.text.Text("Filtered"), clip.text.Text("Filtered")])

])

might help to better see whats happening. Smile

Code:
And I confirm you that the mask is always "white".

I'm planing to write my own motion-mask filter...

Whats wrong with the current one?

I confirm you, that this filter is flawd. As been written (or tested) to work in an narrow range of "tht=10"

Here the mask with tht=10:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=2318]

Here the inverted mask:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=2319]

If I increase "tht" the inverted mask becomes "white", this is not what I want. The expectation is that by increasing "tht" the moving parts will be considered "static", but the filter is unable to get this result.

Dan

Hmm,... I agree higher values should detect less changes.

Cu Selur

I updated the Hybri deoldify test version, which should now work with v2.0.1
(hope I adjusted to all the changes Wink

)

Cu Selur

The new dev-version is working! Smile

I noted that the new temporal filter "color_limiter" is penalized in Vapoursynth encoding pipeline.

For example the encoding speed on my PC with SimpleMerge

Code:
clip = ddeoldify(clip=clip, model=0, sat=[1.00,1.00], hue=[0.00,0.00], chroma_resize=True, dd_method=2)

is 5.28fps

The encoding speed with all post process filters enabled, excluding only "color_limiter"

Code:
clip = ddeoldify(clip=clip, model=0, sat=[1.00,1.00], hue=[0.00,0.00], chroma_resize=True, dd_method=2, dark_darkness=[True,0.1,0.2,0.6,0.65], color_stabilizer=[True,False,True,5,"arithmetic",True])

is 5.20fps, only 2% slower.

But if I add the temporal filter "color_limiter"

Code:
clip = ddeoldify(clip=clip, model=0, sat=[1.00,1.00], hue=[0.00,0.00], chroma_resize=True, dd_method=2, dark_darkness=[True,0.1,0.2,0.6,0.65], color_stabilizer=[True,False,True,5,"arithmetic",True], color_limiter=[True,0.02])

The speed decrease to 2.58fps, 52% slower

But if I apply the filter after "ddeoldify"

Code:
clip = ddeoldify(clip=clip, model=0, sat=[1.00,1.00], hue=[0.00,0.00], chroma_resize=True, dd_method=2, dark_darkness=[True,0.1,0.2,0.6,0.65], color_stabilizer=[True,False,True,5,"arithmetic",True])

clip = dd_video_stabilizer(clip=clip, chroma_resize=[True,24], color_limiter=[True, 0.02])

The encoding speed is 5.04fps, only 5% slower.

It is not clear the reason of such difference in speed, but being a "temporal" filter, it is penalized if applied with other filters in the same pipeline.

I don't know if you are able to observe the same decrease in speed, but if so, It could be worth making available in Hybrid, as a post-post process filter also "dd_video_stabilizer". Angel

Thanks,
Dan

Yes, I get the similar speed inpacts.

I agree that calling:
1. ddeoldify
and then
2. dd_video_stabilizer does make sense
does seem like better approach.

I'm really reluctant to add dd_video_stabilizer since, it's the whole thing gets more and more unusable.
This would add another 14+ ui elements,...

Would it make sense to remove color_stabilizer, color_limiter from ddeoldify
(this would remove the possiblity to use color_stabilizer for ddeoldiy and ddcolor separately) and then call
1. ddeoldify(..)
and then
2. dd_video_stabilizer(..) in case color_stabilizer, color_limiter or color_smoothing is enabled
?

Cu Selur

I understand your point of view.

The more conservative approach is to don't touch the GUI, but in the case is enabled "color_limiter" it can be run separately using dd_video_stabilizer(..) after ddeoldify(..).
For the moment is better enable this separate process only for "color_limiter".

I'm still working on a Vapoursynth version "color_stabilizer" which is not introducing gray frames.
In the case I will be able to find a working solution, it would be better run this version of filter separately like "color_limiter" because is a temporal filter.

Thanks,
Dan

Uploaded a new dev version (same link), let me know what you think of this one.
(loads ddeolify and then dd_video_stabilizer)

Cu Selur

The GUI It's more rational, I like it.
Also the speed is good.

Thanks,
Dan

In the next days I will release a new version (only to you), where I will clean up the ddeoldify filter, by removing the post process filters and probably will rename "dd_video_stabilizer" in "ddeoldify_stabilizer".

Dan

Dan64

Selur

Dan64

Selur

Selur

Dan64

Selur

Dan64

Selur

Dan64