FF3 HQ Capture

2005-04-27 12:30:56 am

First and foremost, I'd like to say a big "thank you" to the mantainers of the site (and the runners itselves, of couse!), it's truly great and you have my gratitude. I hope I can donate or buy DVDs to support it soon.

I recently downloaded the HQ version of the FF3 speedrun. I love HQ versions; I can download them at a place with a very fast connection. That said, that run was 320x240x60, and it had an excessive bitrate of 4000, which made it too big (and also showed the VHS noise with extreme definition). 4000 is good for 640x480x60, but for runs with lower res., you should consider lower bitrates. I'm pretty sure 2000 or even less would be more than enough.

Thanks for your time!

Thread title:

marshmallow

2005-04-29 12:09:12 am

Jack of all Trades

I downloaded the small and high quality versions of the last clip and I couldn't really tell much of a difference...seems pretty silly for an SNES game, maybe it makes of a difference with 3D games and such.

Andy_Olivera

2005-05-04 04:30:31 am

On the HQ subject, it seems I owe Radix an apology. The 60fps method can indeed produce a superior video. It didn't occur to me that the games would be using the interlacing to their advantage(as opposed to standard video). So, if you're reading this, sorry, bro. Wink

I don't know if it works with all games, though. The SMW 100% run and FF3 both look great at 60fps, but the Super Metroid 100% didn't(the static elements of the screen were jittery). That confuses me, but moving on...

Quote:

it had an excessive bitrate of 4000, which...showed the VHS noise with extreme definition.

That's better than the alternative, which is the macroblocking you see at lower bitrates.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure 2000 or even less would be more than enough.

It depends on more than just the bitrate. The encoding speed used(Slow, which enables the Rate-Distortion Algorithm, gives the best quality, but it more than lives up to its name; on 720x540 material I get around 8fps, and that's on a 1.8GHz system) and how many passes(I've found three to be optimal; beyond that you run into the law of diminishing returns). B-frames are very beneficial and GMC would be great for 2D games, but those options are only available with DivX Pro.

It all depends on how long they're willing to dedicate their computers to encoding. Given the amount of video they handle(and the fact that encoding renders your computer next to useless) it wouldn't surprise me if they opted for a higher bitrate over a second or third pass.

Oh, and while I'm here, why was the normal quality FF3 run 20fps?

On the HQ subject, it seems I owe Radix an apology. The 60fps method can indeed produce a superior video. It didn't occur to me that the games would be using the interlacing to their advantage(as opposed to standard video). So, if you're reading this, sorry, bro. ;)

I don't know if it works with all games, though. The SMW 100% run and FF3 both look great at 60fps, but the [i]Super Metroid[/i] 100% didn't(the static elements of the screen were jittery). That confuses me, but moving on...

[quote]it had an excessive bitrate of 4000, which...showed the VHS noise with extreme definition.[/quote]
That's better than the alternative, which is the macroblocking you see at lower bitrates.

[quote]I'm pretty sure 2000 or even less would be more than enough.[/quote]
It depends on more than just the bitrate. The encoding speed used(Slow, which enables the Rate-Distortion Algorithm, gives the best quality, but it more than lives up to its name; on 720x540 material I get around 8fps, and that's on a 1.8GHz system) and how many passes(I've found three to be optimal; beyond that you run into the law of diminishing returns). B-frames are very beneficial and GMC would be great for 2D games, but those options are only available with DivX Pro.

It all depends on how long they're willing to dedicate their computers to encoding. Given the amount of video they handle(and the fact that encoding renders your computer next to useless) it wouldn't surprise me if they opted for a higher bitrate over a second or third pass.

Oh, and while I'm here, why was the normal quality FF3 run 20fps?

Radix

2005-05-04 05:06:18 am

I'm addicted to games

Quote:

Oh, and while I'm here, why was the normal quality FF3 run 20fps?

Nate decided to make the low and normal vids for all 2d games to be 20fps to negate 60hz flashing. Instead of "always on" or "always off" that you get from 30fps, the 20fps still shows the flashing, just not as rapid as the 60fps. He's still not quite used to it yet though, the two recent mzm runs were 30fps.

And by "30" I mean 29.97 and by "20" I mean 19.98.

Andy_Olivera

2005-05-04 06:17:53 am

Does Nate realize that he can load the original 720x480 sequence into VDub, deinterlace using "blend fields", then resize to 320x240 and still retain all 60 frames worth of movement? The resulting blur is unnoticable at full speed...

I guess I'll have to bear with the HQ downloads now. Losing 66% of the game is a bit much...

Trevor

2005-05-04 02:20:06 pm

buy the DVDs and make your own encodes Tongue

looks like Nate isn't offering the FF3 run right now though.

Radix

2005-05-04 03:13:09 pm

I'm addicted to games

Quote:

Does Nate realize that he can load the original 720x480 sequence into VDub, deinterlace using "blend fields", then resize to 320x240 and still retain all 60 frames worth of movement? The resulting blur is unnoticable at full speed...

Yes but it's noticable when you pause. And we don't like that.

The ff3 run won't be on dvd, it's too long... about 3:45 of video is the longest that a run can be.

Andy_Olivera

2005-05-04 03:50:58 pm

Quote:

Yes but it's noticable when you pause. And we don't like that.

Understood. That's the last you'll hear from me on the subject... Lips Sealed

Anonymous

2005-05-24 06:13:30 pm

Sorry for reopening, but:

Quote:

It all depends on how long they're willing to dedicate their computers to encoding. Given the amount of video they handle(and the fact that encoding renders your computer next to useless) it wouldn't surprise me if they opted for a higher bitrate over a second or third pass.

If you are on NT/2000/XP, you can bring up task manager, right click on the offending process, select "Select priority", and then select "Low". After that, you won't even notice the encoding is going on, unless your computer has hyperthreading (if it has, you can either disable it, or live with it, as it won't hurt a lot), is very low on RAM (encoding sounldn't really take much more than 60MBs anyway), or have some broken drivers (for example, lack of DMA - which would render it useless for capturing anyway).

Also, a lot of apps. have built-in priority contols.

Quote:

DivX Pro

Or XviD

Which might be faster and give better quality, and has some great features (chroma motion helps with cartoonish graphics). I believe the last versions are up there with DivX (which I used exclusively about two years ago), plus you can change its fourcc to "DX50" and DivX will play it just fine.

Of course, I understand that you might no have the time to start testing things, but I believe it's worth a try.

Quote:

That's better than the alternative, which is the macroblocking you see at lower bitrates.

I reencoded it at 2000 and it was still perfect. I guess you can go lower too. I see now that a "Final Fantasy II" HQ speedrun has posted, with a bitrate of 1000. I don't know if it's 60fps though.

Quote:

Yes but it's noticable when you pause. And we don't like that.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but I believe for 30fps and 20fps captures blending 2 or 3 fields (or frames - it depends) togheter would be better than the added crispness and jerkyness (I think smoothness is more important than crispness, you aren't going to be pausing the video that much, are you?)

Sorry for reopening, but:

[quote] It all depends on how long they're willing to dedicate their computers to encoding. Given the amount of video they handle(and the fact that encoding renders your computer next to useless) it wouldn't surprise me if they opted for a higher bitrate over a second or third pass. [/quote]

If you are on NT/2000/XP, you can bring up task manager, right click on the offending process, select "Select priority", and then select "Low". After that, you won't even notice the encoding is going on, unless your computer has hyperthreading (if it has, you can either disable it, or live with it, as it won't hurt a lot), is very low on RAM (encoding sounldn't really take much more than 60MBs anyway), or have some broken drivers (for example, lack of DMA - which would render it useless for capturing anyway).

Also, a lot of apps. have built-in priority contols.

[quote]DivX Pro[/quote]

Or XviD ;) Which might be faster and give better quality, and has some great features (chroma motion helps with cartoonish graphics). I believe the last versions are up there with DivX (which I used exclusively about two years ago), plus you can change its fourcc to "DX50" and DivX will play it just fine.

Of course, I understand that you might no have the time to start testing things, but I believe it's worth a try.

[quote] That's better than the alternative, which is the macroblocking you see at lower bitrates. [/quote]

I reencoded it at 2000 and it was still perfect. I guess you can go lower too. I see now that a "Final Fantasy II" HQ speedrun has posted, with a bitrate of 1000. I don't know if it's 60fps though.

[quote] Yes but it's noticable when you pause. And we don't like that.[/quote]

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but I believe for 30fps and 20fps captures blending 2 or 3 fields (or frames - it depends) togheter would be better than the added crispness and jerkyness (I think smoothness is more important than crispness, you aren't going to be pausing the video that much, are you?)

Andy_Olivera

2005-05-24 07:50:42 pm

Anonymous wrote:

Quote:

Or XviD

Which might be faster and give better quality, and has some great features (chroma motion helps with cartoonish graphics). I believe the last versions are up there with DivX (which I used exclusively about two years ago), plus you can change its fourcc to "DX50" and DivX will play it just fine.

I just started using XviD, actually. In the process of trying to encode some of the EMU runs at Bisqwit's site I found XviD gives far superior results at lower bitrates. In addition to Chroma Motion, I think the multi-point GMC is a major improvement that DivX has yet to implement. It also gives you more control over the encoding parameters. For instance, I love that you can set how the B-frame quantizer is calculated(in DivX it's hard-coded at 2x the average of the surrounding P-frames, IIRC). Plus, you can use Quarter Pixel and Rate-Distortion(or Trellis Quantization, in XviD) at the same time.

Quote:

I reencoded it at 2000 and it was still perfect.

If I had to guess I'd say the run was so long Nate didn't feel like experimenting with different bitrates.

[b]Anonymous wrote:[/b]
[quote]Or XviD ;) Which might be faster and give better quality, and has some great features (chroma motion helps with cartoonish graphics). I believe the last versions are up there with DivX (which I used exclusively about two years ago), plus you can change its fourcc to "DX50" and DivX will play it just fine.[/quote]
I just started using XviD, actually. In the process of trying to encode some of the EMU runs at Bisqwit's site I found XviD gives far superior results at lower bitrates. In addition to Chroma Motion, I think the multi-point GMC is a major improvement that DivX has yet to implement. It also gives you more control over the encoding parameters. For instance, I love that you can set how the B-frame quantizer is calculated(in DivX it's hard-coded at 2x the average of the surrounding P-frames, IIRC). Plus, you can use Quarter Pixel and Rate-Distortion(or Trellis Quantization, in XviD) at the same time.

[quote]I reencoded it at 2000 and it was still perfect.[/quote]
If I had to guess I'd say the run was so long Nate didn't feel like experimenting with different bitrates.