View Single Post
Old 26th July 2018, 19:55   #73  |  Link
bradwiggo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmeyer View Post
Yes, apparently "jm" refers to the settings I posted in that thread manolito linked to. For the video that was the topic of that post, my script did indeed produce fewer artifacts than other scripts and as a result, in subsequent threads, it became somewhat of a benchmark. I was flattered but I can assure you that I did nothing more than spend a few hours "twiddling the knobs" in all of the MVTools2 functions (MAnalyze, MFlowFPS, etc.) until I got the best result for that video.

I've been doing this for a long time, having first used the old MotionPerfect to create slow motion more than fifteen years ago, and since having used just about every motion estimation program around. The technology simply can't handle some situations (I already listed a few of these earlier in this thread). The only solution is to look for ways to detect when the ME is failing, and use some other method for that frame, or via masking, for part of that frame. MysteryX spent a huge amount of time tackling this problem and made some progress, but IMHO (through no fault of his) still didn't quite create something that will work in 99% of all scenes.

I've already stated why this particular animated video is going to be particularly difficult to smooth out without making it look worse. My mantra when doing video restoration is similar to the doctor's mantra: "first of all, do no harm." If the cure is worse than the disease, then you should just forget about it. Which, of course, has been my advice on this one from the beginning.
I don't think it looks that bad, the youtube video looks quite good, not too many artifacts. As I said in one of my other comments, I am not necessarily trying or expecting to get the whole film to look as good as that video, I am just trying to reproduce that video.
bradwiggo is offline   Reply With Quote