Jump to content
WnSoft Forums
Lin Evans

HD Video As Good As EXE....

Recommended Posts

This was the first HD Video I've made (made with the latest version of PTE) which I believe equals the EXE file in every way. It's a remake of my "What Can I Do" demo of PTE with some added material. It was done at full HD 60 fps and it's big - 1.274 gigabytes zipped mp4 for anyone interested. If you have the bandwidth and want to see it I would appreciated comments about the video quality.  I played it on my  30 inch 2560 x 1600  display with Win 8.1 on a high performance high RAM system and it looks excellent.

http://www.lin-evans.org/pte/whatcanido2018.zip

Best regards,

Lin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty damn good Lin!! I am no expert on video and I was watching it on a 24" monitor but sure looked very sharp and exacting.

Not sure I understand the 60fps - I thought video was 30fps (29.95) and 60fps would look sped up.......

Love the new laws of physics that a flag can be blown straight out, yet the snow wafts slowly straight down :D:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL - yep flag and wind physics have to take a backseat to the possible... Actually, the number of frames per second doesn't affect the speed of the video, only the smoothness. The exe files we create average 60 fps and 30 fps video can't render animations as smoothly. Using a higher frame rate in the same period of time just gives additional increments which smooth up the motion. Typical movies were shot at 24 fps and to get smooth motion, they used special tricks such as blurring the leading edge of an object in motion. With higher frame rates the  apparent motion is much smoother, but the size of the video file is doubled. Think of it like this - you have a deck of cards on which there are drawings of a subject in motion. Let's say there were 24 drawings each representing part of a sequence of someone taking two steps. You flip all 24 of them in one second and observe. You see the subject take two steps, but the distance traveled with each card is much greater than if you had sixty cards with each card representing a shorter distance moved. If you flip all 60 in the same one second, the subject doesn't move any further than the two steps, but the motion is less jerky because each card represents a smaller amount of travel. So 60 frames per second covering the same capture of motion is much smoother than 30 frames per second or 24 frames per second. The more frames each representing a smaller amount of travel in terms of motion in the same time frame (one second) the smoother the appearance of motion.

Thanks for checking it for me!

Best regards,

Lin  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lin,

very good quality.

I  always use 60 fps because my BR disc player (and my TV) accept this framerate.

You wrote that "the size of the video file is doubled" when you use 60 fps instead of 30 fps" It's not true.

The increase of file size is usually between 10% and 20%.

For some custom transitions, the video is better than the exe.

And if you need better video quality with PTE, it's possible, just type 110% or 120% for example with the keyboard.

 

Denis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Denis - Thanks for checking it out!  What I mean by files size doubled is that since there are double the number of frames, the portion of video which consists of images is doubled in size. The rest of the overhead is not greatly affected, but since the images themselves must be stored inside the video, that part with all other factors such as image dimensions, etc., being consistent by doubling the number if images the storage requirement is doubled.  I haven't tested this particular file at 30 fps but it might not be a bad idea for comparison. I didn't load it to YouTube or Vimeo because I'm not certain what they do in terms of file manipulation and because my own internet connect is quite mediocre, I never know what others with fast internet are seeing. It took over three hours to upload the video to my server - on a good day maybe I can get .75 - .90 mbps upload speed so I rarely upload large videos. It's good to know that others are also getting good quality with this one. 

People only 10 miles from me in an adjacent town all get 1 gigabyte symetrical but where I am, the fasted I can get is DSL... 

Best regards,

Lin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lin,

Your HD video runs excellent on my PC (Windows 10, 32bit, Intel Core2 Quad).
But only with the Pot Player media player; unfortunately with all other media players (VLC, Windows, etc.) you can not do it (jerky, cubes, etc.)
What can be the reason here?
 
Regards,
Frans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Frans,

Thanks for testing!  I can't be certain, but I suspect the reason is that not all players can handle 60 fps video or that not all players use the available resources (video card, RAM, etc.) in the same way. The fact that it plays correctly with one player and not with others indicates that there are sufficient resources with the hardware but that for whatever reason, not all player software uses it in the most expeditious way. 

Best regards,

Lin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI

Lin and Frans, out of curiosity I tried the file in VLC on my desktop PC, it ran very smoothly (as smoothly as it did on the default Win10 "Movies and TV").

I can't find the specs for the desktop, but it was very well spec'ed out 2 (3?) years when I bought it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lin,

I was not brave enought to download that file size, but for a long time now I have been using MP4 versions of shows in HD and High Quality/60fps and playing them on my TV as my prefered viewing experience.

After reading your post I converted the Demo file which I have just posted as a style today ( https://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/topic/20620-advanced-swap-with-jump-ct/ ). It is only 1m 15s and 45Mb but enough to reassure me that what you have said is correct.

 

DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Lin!

I also find interesting the option to create MP4 video with 60p mode for smooth animation.

And future PTE 10 will support hardware encoder for MP4 video, so video encoding will work faster in 3-5 times on modern video cards.

There are two problems:

1. Large file size of a created video.

2. Slight banding on smooth gradients in some scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Igor,

Yes the file size can be an issue for many of us - not so much for storage because storage is really inexpensive these days - but for sharing over the web when one doesn't have fast internet it's problematic. 

I'm always reminded of this because my neighboring town only 8 miles away has gigabit symmetrical internet available for the entire town and it's very reasonably priced. It's possible with that to download or upload an entire HD movie in ten seconds!  Fiber optic lines will eventually make file size a non issue, but sadly smaller communities and the great distances between will mean that it will be many, many years before this type speed is commonly available in the USA. 

Perhaps is may be possible to create some sort of slight gaussian blur feature which will help with the banding. I know sometimes with photos I find that using a blur feature then subsequently using wavelet sharpening on the same image, banding can be made almost invisible. I'm not certain how amenable to this video might be? 

Having the much faster hardware video encoding with  future version of PTE will be great!!!

Best regards,

Lin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lin,

Here's an idea - don't know if it would work but maybe worth a try?

Instead of uploading/downloading the MP4 why not upload the BIZ and let the USER make the MP4.

Maybe in this case the BIZ is quite heavy (those videos) but it is maybe worth looking at?

DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

That would be a possible solution for viewing for those who are PTE users and especially perhaps after pte 10 when hardware encoding will greatly accelerate production of the MP4, but depending on the individual's hardware, the time necessary to both download the BIZ then create the mp4 might be the equivalence of the time necessary to download the huge MP4. In either case it might not be greatly different than downloading the zipped exe version but then that would negate the evaluation of the video as being perhaps equal to the exe. The other caveat is whether each person's hardware will create the MP4 in exactly the same qualitative way? For example, I found that trying to do this with my old standby Win XP system was impossible. Whether this is because of the known incompatibility between Win XP and PTE 9 or because of a system hardware deficit is still unknown. I haven't had problems with my Win XP and other projects or creating the EXE file, but creating this video simply couldn't be done with my old system. I did notice a couple other interesting anomalies which I will take up with Igor later. I found that using Jean-Cyprien's book style before his Rubik's Cube style in the same project resulted in loosing the background on the Rubick's Cube animation with it being replaced with a blank green screen and also adversely affecting the initial timing on the Rubick's Cube animation. It's still a big head scratch but not terribly important at this time when version 10 is on the horizon. 

Best regards,

Lin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, Lin, as always! Regarding file size, typically MP4 encoding will be more efficient at 60 fps vs 30 fps for the same source material, so the storage requirement would be less than double - although the exact numbers depend on many factors. I see that you targeted a bit rate of 16Mbps. A typical (commercial) MP4 encode at 1920x1080x24p would target around 20Mbps. For 60p I'd recommend you target at least 25Mbps - even as high as 40Mbps (although your file size would then be truly enormous).

I played it on a fairly old system with MPC Home Cinema 64-bit and the  playback was smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I figured it was already too big and that most would not have the bandwidth to download it. In a few years I'm guessing that more will have fiber optic lines and fast internet in this country. As I said earlier, I'm jealous of the town about ten miles south of me where everyone has gigabit symmetrical. They can download or upload a full HD movie in 10 seconds. Hard to understand when it take hours for me to upload a 1.27 gig video. I have plenty of computing power (32 gig's RAM, etc.) on my Win 8.1 system but I much prefer using my XP system. I've completely resisted Win 10 - I doubt I'll ever load it - just too many problems. Maybe if I were 20 years younger I would give it a try, but I doubt I'll last long enough to "have" to download it. I may try a 20p at 40Mbps just for fun, but the one I created works perfectly so I'm not certain I would notice any difference.

Best regards,

Lin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think large files are a problem at all and I wonder why so many make such a fuss about them. You would think that they had to peddle some static cycle for an hour to make the download work. Trust me it takes no effort at all.

I appreciate I only live in one part of the world, but this slideshow took 21 minutes to download and I am not a city dweller with super fast Internet. Here at least, bandwidth is not a problem as I guess it isn't in most places anymore.  Did the download stop me accessing other areas of the Internet?  No. Did the download stop me from working on my PC? No. Do I have to sit by the PC and guard it while it's downloading? No.

21 minutes is probably just enough time to go into the kitchen, make the tea, or coffee. Raid the biscuit tin (Cookie jar) or make a sandwich and come back to the file sitting on the desktop. Where is the problem and so what if your internet takes 40 minutes. Just force yourself to be patient, or start the download when you know you will be away from the PC a while. It will download without your help :-)

However, we have got an education issue in front of us when we see CURRENT AV competition rules like these below. So tight that you need to be an expert just to get the file size that low without making a crappy show. 

3. A maximum of 3 Audio Visuals can be entered in each section.
The maximum length is 7 minutes and maximum file size is 31 MB.

Uploading large files in my experience is always a much longer process than downloading.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

I beg to differ on the idea that file size does not matter. Lin gave a link to his 'Whatcanido2018.zip' slide show. It would have be nice to have put it on the Slideshowclub site but the  max size for upload is only 125Mbs. Since his show is 1.8Gbs, this is not possible. I have been asking Igor for almost a year to fix this problem since it appeared. It is a limiting factor that prevents uploads of larger sized files, especially those with video clips. Not everyone has a web site that can host files. So the Slideshowclub used to be a good solution to share our shows. I have reverted to putting all my slideshows on my Facebook page but it does not help in getting comments from other PTE users. Would be nice if Igor would fix it. He has said he would, but hasn't.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is that what is possible in some areas is nearly impossible in others. Here in the USA in or around large cities there is cable internet and in some places such as the nearby town I mentioned even gigabit symmetrical (download and upload are the same speed) which is fantastic if you have it. On the other hand, where I live and in many parts of the USA all that is available is DSL and in many rural places only satellite internet which is extremely expensive and very slow. You are often charged a huge premium if you exceed your allotted download or upload limits. The USA like Australia is a huge place, but our population is much greater and in our western states very scattered so that we have thousands of tiny communities which only have copper wire so fast internet isn't available from fiber optic and many do not have cable available. This leaves either dial up with DSL where it's available and in many, many cases satellite which at best is relatively poor.

The bottom line is that many of my friends can't download huge files. It's not because of the time, it's because of the cost. I assume that sometime in the future (years) there will be fast and reasonably priced internet available, but I doubt it will happen during my life. 

The issue with AV competition is something I have no experience with at all since it's as rare as hen's teeth in about any area I've lived in on this continent to even find AV competitions. There was interest many years ago as well as many camera clubs, etc., but not any more. 

There is probably a good reason why Slideshowcub has file size limits and it may well be due to costs. I pay about $50 per month for my own web host which is unlimited for storage but more expensive than many would probably find comfortable. There is most likely much less expensive storage available, but using it would require losing things on sites I've participated on since the late 1990's and should it be that I couldn't keep my current URL, all images, etc., links to these photo sites would be broken by moving all my code and images to lesser expensive storage so I keep it even though I really can't afford it. Years ago I lost my lin-evans dot com and had to take lin-evans dot org and it was weeks of editing on sites like dPReview to update links. Usually one can keep their domain but when it's sold by your host and you change hosts it can get dicey at times....

Lin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary

I think your missing the point a bit. There is no way wnsoft is likely to host file sizes in excess of 1Gig on slide show club. It's unreasonable to expect them to pick up the cost of this particularly when we also know that many 500MB slide shows can be made at 70MB just as good. For us to be able to post file sizes of that size, you would very likely have to accept the YouTube model complete with adverts to pay for for service

It's not that difficult or costly to invest in an online storage account to allow anyone who has the drive to do so, to get their presentations to others. You don't have to have a web site, but even those are free, just look at Wix. I am a little sceptical that your likely to get many comments from SSC viewers.  I don't know about you, but I have never seen an abundance of comments so far. 

Lin.

I accept there will always be exceptions, but the gripes you hear about large downloads rarely mention cost. In fact the last time I recall cost being mentioned was Eric Shepard and his download limit of 20MB. I never considered cost at all in my text above. I was commenting on those who mention file size when they have no reason to do so. I would be interested to hear what this huge premium cost would be for downloading your slide show, which is in itself extreme because you did it as a quality test.

Presumably you have no trouble uploading that file size and in my experience that will take a whole lot longer than downloading it and presumably involve the same bandwidth and huge premium cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Barry Beckham said:

Gary

I think your missing the point a bit....

 

Barry,

My point  was not to increase the max upload size to accept file sizes in excess of 1 Gig, though it  would be nice. My point was to revert back to at least what the  max upload size used to be which was about 273Mbs. The decrease in the max upload size apparently occurred due to the server's configuration. Igor acknowledged this and said he would 'fix' the problem. I noticed this back in January 2017. Whether there are many comments or not in the SSC, I would be nice to have the ability to upload shows without the current restriction in size.

Gary

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Barry,

I suspect that the majority of people who use satellite internet and have to pay a penalty for uploads and downloads which go over their allotted capacity are here in the USA and of our frequent forum participants, there really are a numerical minority from the USA. I don't know this for a fact, but I also suspect that the USA represents a much smaller percentage of PTE users than those from the UK, Australia, and Europe so being concerned about a relatively huge file size was really my concern for people I know. The vast majority of my own personal friends are not PTE users nor do most live in or close to cities. Other than my next door neighbor, whom I talk with mostly on FB, my closest friend lives 160 miles south of me and has satellite internet so I can't even link her to my shows other than on FB or YouTube. My closest relative lives about 1200 miles from me and the few friends with whom I communicate on a regular basis live very, very far away. 

I try to keep my own shows small enough that they can be posted to FB or YouTube but I've not been happy with the quality of either if there is any serious degree of animation. I was pleasantly surprised that even with all the animation and video in the demonstration on this last test, the actual video was, at least to me, virtually indistinguishable from the EXE version. However, I realize that trying to stream such a large show over YouTube or FaceBook is a recipe for disaster for all my non PTE friends who have slow internet so the great smoothness would probably be lost due to the bitrate not being amenable to their bandwidth in a streaming format. 

I have no problems myself with downloading or uploading a large file because I have multiple systems and can continue working while a three hour or more upload is happening. On the other hand were I on a satellite internet it would definitely be a huge problem. Sadly, many satellite internet plans here charge a substantial premium if one goes over their allotted capacity. In addition, for example, trying to upload or download a huge file often results in failure. Perhaps this fail is due to some glitch such as drops on a cell phone, but uploading 500 meg of a gigabyte or more file size and having to start over is not fun and it happens frequently enough that most here in the USA who have satellite service simply will not attempt to upload or download huge files even if their internet plan doesn't penalize them by capacity.

I will check with some of my friends and see what the actual cost of exceeding their plan capacity is and post it.  

Lin

Later:  Below is the least expensive plan I could find for satellite service in my area. Their plans run from $49.99 per month for a 10 gigabyte limit without penalty (this one doesn't charge extra, but slows your service to a crawl if you exceed capacity) to 129.99 per month for a 50 gigabyte plan. The download speed is up to 25 Mbps and the upload speed is up to 3 Mbps. At this speed it would take six hours or more to upload my test file. There are provisions for higher capacity without penalty for certain off-peak hours but most people are sound asleep at these times. My two friend who have this service in my state tell me that they have never gotten anywhere near 25 Mbps on their download but generally get about 5 Mbps and the upload speed rarely goes over 2 Mbps. 

satellite.thumb.jpg.fee464627475c113386c84e279912dde.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK Sky:

HD+ TV

Telephone (Rental)

Fibre Broadband - Unlimited 38Mbps Download

All for around £80.

DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×