Help Make Freeman's Mind HD! - General

I love how he put Deus Ex music in when he first mentions an SSD as if to imply it's super futuristic.

I did this video 3 years ago. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dahiI4wSfjA[/media] 1080p2400. Uncompressed. Took like 20 hours to record and took up 1350GB. And maybe 8 hours to process the motion blur. It simply is required for the kind of visual effect he's going for. 180fps is probably the minimum for a project like this for the kind of clarity. Unfortunately, I honestly don't agree with the SSD part. I would suggest for him to get either a new 4TB drive or two 2TB drives and put them in RAID0 purely for the recording. A) it would most likely be faster in the long run due to the space+Sequential performance. But B) also he can record much more at once. Unless he really only does want to do 720p. Doesn't seem like he's much of a resolution freak, though he is a motionblur fan, so that's a bit confusing. Biggest project I did was 5120x2880@400fps uncompressed for some minecraft stuff. 1TB per minute of video. That was a fun project. Edit: Looking at his rig again, his SSD is the least of his concerns regarding performance me thinks. Sure, recording is slow but the processing is a crawl on that X4. Also I think using CC force motion blur would provide a better result with less headaches through script testing and MVtools.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;44248881] 1080p2400. Uncompressed. Took like 40 hours to record and took up 1350GB. And maybe 8 hours to process the motion blur. It simply is required for the kind of visual effect he's going for. 180fps is probably the minimum for a project like this for the kind of clarity. Unfortunately, I honestly don't agree with the SSD part. I would suggest for him to get either a new 4TB drive or two 2TB drives and put them in RAID0 purely for the recording. A) it would most likely be faster in the long run due to the space+Sequential performance. But B) also he can record much more at once. Unless he really only does want to do 720p. Doesn't seem like he's much of a resolution freak, though he is a motionblur fan, so that's a bit confusing. Biggest project I did was 5120x2880@400fps uncompressed for some minecraft stuff. 1TB per minute of video. That was a fun project. Edit: Looking at his rig again, his SSD is the least of his concerns regarding performance me thinks. Sure, recording is slow but the processing is a crawl on that X4. Also I think using CC force motion blur would provide a better result with less headaches through script testing and MVtools.[/QUOTE] There's a nice tool for Source called SrcDemo2 that makes all of this a ton easier by making a virtual drive and combing the frames on the fly (so you don't end up with TBs of frame data) I don't know if he knows it exists but I imagine it would help a ton. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1126220[/url]

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44249033]There's a nice tool for Source called SrcDemo2 that makes all of this a ton easier by making a virtual drive and combing the frames on the fly (so you don't end up with TBs of frame data) I don't know if he knows it exists but I imagine it would help a ton. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1126220[/url][/QUOTE] I learned of that after I quit messing with source videos. I even posted in that topic a bunch. It's a very nice tool, and frankly, I think Ross should look into it. Since he's doing a combination process with MVtools2 with avisynth. Recording a high FPS, but not insanely so, and then using the plugin to estimate the inbetween information to smooth it out. He could probably cut his work down by making the recording process longer, by not having to process at all. Edit: To expand. Recording the game, is generally limited by the storage medium. Given his old drives he might muster 70-80MB/s. Take 720p, which is 2.7mb per frame. He could do perhaps 28-30 frames per second. MAYBE. usually less. A modern 3-4TB HD can do 180MB/s+. That's 60-65frames per second recording. At 180fps, that's only perhaps 30-35% speed. Pretty good. But the trouble is in the processing. That script by design, doesn't just read every 6th frame and then make the motion blur. It processes the motion blur on every frame, and then simply grabs every 6th one. And this process is extremely slow, and most importantly, rarely ever multithreads properly. You might get 2x speed out of a 4 core processor. For me, at 1080p you're looking at maybe 1fps, maybe 2. So he's doing that on 180fps footage. So imagine if he used that srcdemo tool and could simply do 640fps, but... only once. He'd have a much smaller headache. Record, take a nap. It's done. And the video can be played back.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;44248881]I did this video 3 years ago. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dahiI4wSfjA[/media] 1080p2400. Uncompressed. Took like 40 hours to record and took up 1350GB. And maybe 8 hours to process the motion blur. It simply is required for the kind of visual effect he's going for. 180fps is probably the minimum for a project like this for the kind of clarity. Unfortunately, I honestly don't agree with the SSD part. I would suggest for him to get either a new 4TB drive or two 2TB drives and put them in RAID0 purely for the recording. A) it would most likely be faster in the long run due to the space+Sequential performance. But B) also he can record much more at once. Unless he really only does want to do 720p. Doesn't seem like he's much of a resolution freak, though he is a motionblur fan, so that's a bit confusing. Biggest project I did was 5120x2880@400fps uncompressed for some minecraft stuff. 1TB per minute of video. That was a fun project. Edit: Looking at his rig again, his SSD is the least of his concerns regarding performance me thinks. Sure, recording is slow but the processing is a crawl on that X4. Also I think using CC force motion blur would provide a better result with less headaches through script testing and MVtools.[/QUOTE] Email him then, I mean, Ross is a pretty chill guy and he'd probably be very happy to hear there are better solutions.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;44248881]To give people an idea. I did this video 3 years ago. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dahiI4wSfjA[/media] 1080p2400. Uncompressed. Took like 40 hours to record and took up 1350GB. And maybe 8 hours to process the motion blur. It simply is required for the kind of visual effect he's going for. 180fps is probably the minimum for a project like this for the kind of clarity. Unfortunately, I honestly don't agree with the SSD part. I would suggest for him to get either a new 4TB drive or two 2TB drives and put them in RAID0 purely for the recording. A) it would most likely be faster in the long run due to the space+Sequential performance. But B) also he can record much more at once. Unless he really only does want to do 720p. Doesn't seem like he's much of a resolution freak, though he is a motionblur fan, so that's a bit confusing. Biggest project I did was 5120x2880@400fps uncompressed for some minecraft stuff. 1TB per minute of video. That was a fun project.[/QUOTE] Also SSDs have can't rewrite to the same bit over and over like a hard disk can.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;44247771]Wouldn't it be easier to let go of motion blur? Is it that important? It seems like he's creating his own tower of duct tape here.[/QUOTE] yeah but by explaining this fake problem he gets a free massive SSD and a bunch of other shit for relatively little effort in this video itself

[QUOTE=Ithon;44249118]Also SSDs have can't rewrite to the same bit over and over like a hard disk can.[/QUOTE] True, but a quality SSD can likely have 3000 erase cycles. That's a ton of data. ALTHOUGH, you are correct if he leaves it full and continues to rewrite the same section the drive can degrade very quickly.

I just emailed him a minute ago. I'll post his reply if I get one.

[QUOTE=draugur;44249108]Email him then, I mean, Ross is a pretty chill guy and he'd probably be very happy to hear there are better solutions.[/QUOTE] I might summarize what a few of us said. I'm a believer in a hybrid option. SSD's for OS and Programs. And then use giant HD's for video. They rule in long term recording and sustained reads and writes. Sure SSD's can get faster speeds, but they can be cramped unless you get a expensive as fuck one, and even then I hope he's got a SATA3 port. At this point, it would be advantageous for him to just scrap his entire computer. It's completely outdated for any video editing. 8GB ram? an SSD would only help a small amount due to how slow the rest of the machine is. Edit: I'm sure after all this time, he knows what he wants. But I thrive on projects like these. My channel is full of technical benchmark videos. Recording in 8k 200fps in skyrim and downsampling. Recording at 6400fps in crysis or something. So I kind of have a lot of experience as well in these kinds of storage and process heavy projects. But not nearly as consistent stuff as him.

[QUOTE=Cronos Dage;44249162]yeah but by explaining this fake problem he gets a free massive SSD and a bunch of other shit for relatively little effort in this video itself[/QUOTE] Did you actually watch the video? He explains very clearly how it's not a "fake problem".

I'm curious though, why does he live in Poland? Found it. [sp]His girlfriend.[/sp]

you can use an effect like reel smart motion blur (per-pixel motion blur) to get a similar effect. obviously its not as accurate, but works good when static elements like a hud aren't present [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCiHRrm3J1M[/media] this comparison uses a more subtle setting. im not saying to use this effect, i'm just putting it out there

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;44247771]Wouldn't it be easier to let go of motion blur? Is it that important? It seems like he's creating his own tower of duct tape here.[/QUOTE] Honestly, one of the things I notice most about his videos is the motion blur. The process he uses makes it look really good.

[QUOTE=Scot;44247805]why does he live in poland[/QUOTE] So he can buy cans of beans for a couple dozen cents

[QUOTE=Neckbird;44249996]you can use an effect like reel smart motion blur (per-pixel motion blur) to get a similar effect. obviously its not as accurate, but works good when static elements like a hud aren't present this comparison uses a more subtle setting. im not saying to use this effect, i'm just putting it out there[/QUOTE] Even on really good Xeon rigs, RSMB takes a ton of time to do, and just doesn't match the niceness of actual frame blending. Him getting an SSD might be an OK solution, but getting high performance HDDs in RAID0 with some more/faster RAM would be best methinks.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44248556]Technically it's the proper way to do motionblur: frameblending. It's why SMF is so fucking slow sometimes. It also looks good, but takes forEVER to render. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWvKNRErip4[/media] IIRC this was 1620 FPS, so it took ~16 hours to render (Accounting for source crashing once)[/QUOTE] Can you give any more details on this? [I]1620 frames per second?![/I]

[QUOTE=latin_geek;44250246]Can you give any more details on this? [I]1620 frames per second?![/I][/QUOTE] Used SrcDemo2. Basically it creates a 'virtual' drive that you have source output the frames into - it then on the fly converts those into the 'blended down' frames. Since you don't have to write all 54 frames, only 1 (per 54) it takes up much, MUCH less space. But in source you record a demo (record filename) then you play it back with host_framerate XYZ (1620 in this case) and then startmovie dir/files_ tga wav then playdemo filename.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6CIBqOc.png[/IMG] Posted by ross on the accursed farms forum :v: Referring to SrcDemo²

Guh. it always floors me when people complain about requirin motion blur in their games, i suppose it's different when your posting the videos to youtube but even then, motion blur just looks like wet dog crap. Your mind blurs it regardless, or at least its supposed to. it always looks worse with a double layering.

I don't like heavy real time screen-space motion blur (a lot of games way overdo it), but I fucking love how object motion blur looks in games that do it like Killzone or Crysis. Man that is a slow video to record. It's like he has to record in valve time.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;44250537]Guh. it always floors me when people complain about requirin motion blur in their games, i suppose it's different when your posting the videos to youtube but even then, motion blur just looks like wet dog crap. Your mind blurs it regardless, or at least its supposed to. it always looks worse with a double layering.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand some of the major principles behind film then...

I chipped in $10 just because him and his videos are awesome. As for Solid State Drives, is there any indication when the ones with around 1-2 terabytes storage will cost under $250? I currently have a 240 GB SSD (Corsair brand) and I use it to run a few games that take their sweet time in loading levels.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;44250537] Your mind blurs it regardless, or at least its supposed to. it always looks worse with a double layering.[/QUOTE] no it doesnt. the only reason it doesnt is because your mind sees the screen as flat and not a 3d image. thats why motion blur is needed to begin with.

[QUOTE=Neckbird;44249996]you can use an effect like reel smart motion blur (per-pixel motion blur) to get a similar effect. obviously its not as accurate, but works good when static elements like a hud aren't present [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCiHRrm3J1M[/media] this comparison uses a more subtle setting. im not saying to use this effect, i'm just putting it out there[/QUOTE] But he already does this. it's part of his processing. But you need to feed it a high framerate for that to be in any way accurate.

He's already up to 6gs woah.

[QUOTE=quacles;44250899]He's already up to 6gs woah.[/QUOTE] Create good content on youtube, well not everyone usually creates good content, but having a good loyal fanbase that enjoys the creator's content, and you can literally buy a brand new car, with enough fans, the next day right after a kickstarter.

[video=youtube;dahiI4wSfjA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dahiI4wSfjA[/video] This resulted in a 1.35 TB raw file at 2400 FPS. I can see why he'd need to upgrade to pull a higher res.

[QUOTE=Scot;44247805]why does he live in poland[/QUOTE] Why do you live in Russia?

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44250230]Even on really good Xeon rigs, RSMB takes a ton of time to do, and just doesn't match the niceness of actual frame blending. Him getting an SSD might be an OK solution, but getting high performance HDDs in RAID0 with some more/faster RAM would be best methinks.[/QUOTE] RSMB is actually pretty fast. [editline]16th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mattk50;44250537]Guh. it always floors me when people complain about requirin motion blur in their games, i suppose it's different when your posting the videos to youtube but even then, motion blur just looks like wet dog crap. Your mind blurs it regardless, or at least its supposed to. it always looks worse with a double layering.[/QUOTE] Nope go read up on things.