PDA

View Full Version : How to make 60FPS YouTube videos!



HyperMatrix
03-04-2013, 11:11 PM
Wanted to do this last week. Got around to doing it now. Basically I show you how to pre-edit 60fps video/audio to play back at 60FPS in YouTube's HTML Player.

You'll need the following applications:

Audacity - http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
VirtualDub - http://virtualdub.sourceforge.net/

As you can tell...I love open source apps. :)

Also as always I recommend having the K-Lite Codec Pack installed: http://codecguide.com/download_kl.htm

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsBXYHfYgmI
60FPS Sample Video (ONLY AFTER WATCHING ABOVE): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMq-AVgX-w

Remember to view the 60FPS video properly, you must go to: http://www.youtube.com/html5 and click the "Join the HTML5 Trial" link at the bottom. Then go to the sample video URL above. Click the gear/cog icon. Select 1080p resolution. And select 2x Playback speed.

Don't think I'm going to upload all my videos at 60FPS. But it's nice to have the option. :)

- HyperMatrix

Cpt.Teacup
03-04-2013, 11:49 PM
How do I force the video to use the HTML5 player? I joined the trial but the sample video still uses Flash.

By the way, here is a plugin that makes Youtube (Shittube) almost bearable to use: YousableTubeFix (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/57201)

As far as I know, it's only available for Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. Sorry Hyper, I didn't see any IE version.

HyperMatrix
03-05-2013, 02:55 AM
How do I force the video to use the HTML5 player? I joined the trial but the sample video still uses Flash.

By the way, here is a plugin that makes Youtube (Shittube) almost bearable to use: YousableTubeFix (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/57201)

As far as I know, it's only available for Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. Sorry Hyper, I didn't see any IE version.

Might be a limitation of your browser. Try loading with Internet Explorer 10 after joining the HTML5 trial. As you saw in the video it worked for me.

HyperMatrix
03-05-2013, 02:56 AM
Sadly there is no way to watch in native 60fps/120fps without "tricks".

Vimeo I believe allows 60fps. But they don't allow game content/guides there. It's for artsy stuff.

Cpt.Teacup
03-05-2013, 12:03 PM
HTML5 is compatible with Chrome. I'm pretty sure it's just Shittube randomly deciding that I don't get to watch this video with HTML5.

HyperMatrix
03-05-2013, 01:22 PM
Have you tried it with ie10 yet to find out?

HyperMatrix
03-05-2013, 01:30 PM
Some dude commented that it's because ad-supported video doesn't work in html5 and still loads flash player. Disabled monetization on the video. You guys can give it another shot now.

Cpt.Teacup
03-05-2013, 02:37 PM
Works now. FRAPS says 60fps, it definitely looks smoother but the visual quality seems bad, not sure how to describe it. The audio quality is terrible.

HyperMatrix
03-05-2013, 02:47 PM
Works now. FRAPS says 60fps, it definitely looks smoother but the visual quality seems bad, not sure how to describe it. The audio quality is terrible.

Audio quality is bad and can't do anything about that. Video quality is only bad because it's 1080p and the youtube encoding engine doesn't like things like raid. Or high-detailed asphalt in racing games, for example. I'll do a sample video with a better scene later. But 60fps shouldn't in any way lower video quality. That's just because of the scene I chose. Though audio will always be trash. :P

Cal627
03-06-2013, 10:19 PM
Sweet find man. I'm rendering a video of GRID in Sony Vegas right now. What better than a racing game to show off 60fps on youtube right? It should be up soon. I still ended up using audacity to stretch the audio. Wasn't sure how to accomplish that in Vegas but I was able to sync it up perfectly. Im interested to see how it comes out. I will post the link here once it is all finished and uploaded.

Here it is. Audio quality is crappy as noted by HyperMatrix but the 60fps is working.
http://youtu.be/s-nHnCIVdWI

HyperMatrix
03-10-2013, 03:50 AM
Sweet find man. I'm rendering a video of GRID in Sony Vegas right now. What better than a racing game to show off 60fps on youtube right? It should be up soon. I still ended up using audacity to stretch the audio. Wasn't sure how to accomplish that in Vegas but I was able to sync it up perfectly. Im interested to see how it comes out. I will post the link here once it is all finished and uploaded.

Here it is. Audio quality is crappy as noted by HyperMatrix but the 60fps is there and at glorious 1440p!
http://youtu.be/s-nHnCIVdWI

I only see 1080p as an available option. :( So far both my video and your video are bad examples of video quality. YouTube encoding hates rain and asphalt in racing games. :P Too much detail to keep up with so it just blurs them. But 60fps videos look so much better.

Cal627
03-11-2013, 09:10 PM
I only see 1080p as an available option. :( So far both my video and your video are bad examples of video quality. YouTube encoding hates rain and asphalt in racing games. :P Too much detail to keep up with so it just blurs them. But 60fps videos look so much better.


Yea I noticed its only 1080p now as well. Which is weird because when i first uploaded it I had the original quality option. I later tried adding music from youtube and ended up taking the music back off and that probably broke it.

I also made this video of Crysis 1 at 3840x2160 with a download link to the original file. Details are in the description where i basically say that original quality is just as distorted as 1080p and not even worth trying to watch. It may have a high resolution but the bitrate or codec they use is garbage and pisses me off! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW7C6jvP-Ew

HyperMatrix
03-11-2013, 09:44 PM
Yea I noticed its only 1080p now as well. Which is weird because when i first uploaded it I had the original quality option. I later tried adding music from youtube and ended up taking the music back off and that probably broke it.

I also made this video of Crysis 1 at 3840x2160 with a download link to the original file. Details are in the description where i basically say that original quality is just as distorted as 1080p and not even worth trying to watch. It may have a high resolution but the bitrate or codec they use is garbage and pisses me off! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW7C6jvP-Ew

Yeah YouTube editing options convert video to max 1080p. That's what happened. And yeah the codec they use can be bad. But I feel for them. I upload a 26 minute video that's 15GB. They have to cut that down drastically otherwise they'll break the internet. :P And lose money in the process.

Actually looking at your video...it's quite terrible in quality. Your original recording before youtube encoding looks nice. But look at the data on your video and my video here:
898

Consider that your recording has 2.25x more pixels than a 2560x1440 recording. Yet I used a bitrate 50% higher than yours. So in terms of relative Size -> Quality ratio, I have nearly 3.4x higher bitrate per pixel ratio. I believe the higher quality the video you upload to youtube, the better the video looks even after youtube re-encoding. Try uploading a 15 second clip at like 250mbps bitrate and see how it looks. You'll notice all my 2560x1440 recordings are super crisp on YouTube.

Also consider using something other than .wmv. That may be causing an issue with youtube encoding as well. Try X264. Also I just checked and it seems you don't have a constant framerate in your video. That may be another factor contributing to the poor YouTube encode quality.

Cal627
03-19-2013, 02:03 PM
Here is a comparison between X264 and wmv. Both bitrates are well above 100mbps. They both look the same to me. Still crappy quality. You shouldnt have to upload a 100mbps+ recording for youtube to look its best. I see no difference between these and my 68mbps upload at 3840x2160.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32PXKlyG9tQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxonNo5FiiM

Shadman
03-19-2013, 04:31 PM
I purpose 120HzVideoHosting.net.

Or BetterThanYoutube.net

Cpt.Teacup
03-19-2013, 04:46 PM
I purpose 120HzVideoHosting.net.

Or BetterThanYoutube.net

Please please please, I am so sick of Youpoop. :(

winterhell
03-19-2013, 05:19 PM
That wont be easy to pull, especially from the storage perspective.

HyperMatrix
03-22-2013, 07:05 AM
I purpose 120HzVideoHosting.net.

Or BetterThanYoutube.net

Hah...I have 100tb of transfer a month on a gigabit connection on this server and I'm afraid to even put 1 video up at 60fps with decent quality. Think about multiple people streaming at once. You'd instantly be using 2x as much bandwidth and space as youtube, but without a business model that would provide you with as much revenue.

Perhaps need to talk to Kim Dotcom. He'd be able to pull it off.

Cal627
03-31-2013, 10:37 PM
HyperMatrix Can you upload a 1440p video of Crysis 1 gameplay on youtube? Preferably that same level I was on. The name of the map is Relic. At the main menu hit the ~ key to bring up the console. Then type "map rescue" and record a minute or two of some gameplay. I doubt your video will look any better than mine.

mdrejhon
08-13-2013, 04:56 PM
Blur Busters did this one better. :D
True 120fps video, not 60fps video!

http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/real-time-120fps-video/

Unfortunately, no hosting site supports 120fps video yet.

houstonian
08-19-2013, 11:06 PM
Blur Busters did this one better. :D
True 120fps video, not 60fps video!

http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/real-time-120fps-video/

Unfortunately, no hosting site supports 120fps video yet.

I've just started a crowd-funding campaign on Indiegogo.com to raise money to launch a high-frame-rate video sharing site for videos up to 120 fps. The 120 fps will be experimental to begin with, but I plan to offer two quality options for playback of each video from the get-go. Basically, 720p at up to 120 fps and a lower bitrate option capped at 60 fps for those whose systems can't handle the higher quality option. I'm leaning toward using PHP Motion for the script with cloud hosting for expandability. I'm trying to raise at least $10,000 to get started and have some staying power until I can get the revenue cranking.

I now own the domain name hfrvideo.com and I intend to use it!

houstonian
08-19-2013, 11:08 PM
Of course I forgot to provide the campaign link: http://igg.me/p/452815/x/3811011

Shadman
08-21-2013, 02:57 AM
I think this might be too niche for IGG for $10,000, but I certainly hope it does go through.

I think the best self-sustaining idea for now is to advertise to gamers they can host HQ, HFR videos for a small fee (subscription? Per-video?) And you get your revenue from that, and a tiny bit from advertising. I know people who would jump at the opportunity to pay a site to host at least 60fps video. You'll just need to find a cost balance, and maximum video settings, and maybe a way to change the video quality on the player so lots of people can play it, not just people with high end cards.

HyperMatrix
08-21-2013, 03:15 AM
60fps for free, 120fps for paying customers (the uploaders). I agree. I'd use Vimeo which supports 60fps video, but they don't allow gaming vids. If proper interpolation didn't take so much processing power I'd just patent in-browser video interpolation. You'd be surprised at how smooth 30fps gameplay video looks when interpolated at 120fps.

Cpt.Teacup
08-21-2013, 04:20 AM
Since when does Vimeo support 60fps video?

As for this ambitious plan for a new video hosting site, I haven't had a chance to read the campaign page but I hope you understand how expensive and difficult it would be to host videos like that at any large scale or popularity. Either way, I think you need a catchier name. ;)

HyperMatrix
08-21-2013, 05:29 AM
Since when does Vimeo support 60fps video?

As for this ambitious plan for a new video hosting site, I haven't had a chance to read the campaign page but I hope you understand how expensive and difficult it would be to host videos like that at any large scale or popularity. Either way, I think you need a catchier name. ;)




Jim Cancil (http://vimeo.com/user7341043) 1 year ago
Does not 60 fps automatically look better (maybe 2X as good?) as 29 fps? ..I know about SloMo, but, still, does 60 fps display sharper/clearer? Thanks. Jim


http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/476/182/4761826_30.jpg (http://vimeo.com/mattschwarz) Matt Schwarz (http://vimeo.com/mattschwarz) Staff (http://vimeo.com/about) 1 year ago
Hi Jim,
60fps won't make the video look 2x better, just depends on the project. If you upload in 60fps we won't change it if that is what you mean.


http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/210/422/2104228_75.jpg (http://vimeo.com/user7341043) Jim Cancil (http://vimeo.com/user7341043) 1 year ago
Matt, thanks.. but you opened a 'can of worms'; what does "depends on the project" mean?
..andI thought what I see on Vimeo was presented at 24-29 fps? 'Appreciate you being there.
Jim


http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/476/182/4761826_30.jpg (http://vimeo.com/mattschwarz) Matt Schwarz (http://vimeo.com/mattschwarz) Staff (http://vimeo.com/about) 1 year ago
Hi Jim,
It depends on what rate you filmed at, but increased FPS doesn't make a video "better". There isn't really a reason to change it if you don't need to. Our system will take whatever FPS you give us without changing it as long as it's under 60FPS.

houstonian
08-21-2013, 11:06 AM
I was thinking of possibly charging for a premium membership for viewing videos in 1080p, later on down the road. Initially I am planning to offer videos in one of two playback resolutions with a toggle switch, ala a PHP Motion plugin (I'm strongly leaning toward using the PHP Motion script). I'm thinking 720p at up to 120 fps (experimental) for hd and 360p at up to 60 fps for low resolution.

Regarding Vimeo, Vimeo's compression guidelines page at http://vimeo.com/help/compression says, "Vimeo accepts videos with frame rates of 24 (or 23.976), 25, and 30 (or 29.97)." ...Is that information incomplete?

HyperMatrix
08-22-2013, 01:50 AM
I was thinking of possibly charging for a premium membership for viewing videos in 1080p, later on down the road. Initially I am planning to offer videos in one of two playback resolutions with a toggle switch, ala a PHP Motion plugin (I'm strongly leaning toward using the PHP Motion script). I'm thinking 720p at up to 120 fps (experimental) for hd and 360p at up to 60 fps for low resolution.

Regarding Vimeo, Vimeo's compression guidelines page at http://vimeo.com/help/compression says, "Vimeo accepts videos with frame rates of 24 (or 23.976), 25, and 30 (or 29.97)." ...Is that information incomplete?


That's the official stance, but according to videos I've watched on their and several confirmed responses from their staff, 60fps video is accepted and kept at 60fps when uploaded. However, there may be issues with anything that falls outside of the standard supported framerates and no support will be given.


Also, I'm unaware of the market demand for chargeable video viewing (with the exception of adult content). Generally speaking, you want to encourage people to come to the site, to encourage content creators and advertisers. Keep in mind the largest part of video hosting isn't even about hosting video content. Ignoring disk space and bandwidth and etc...the biggest issue is actually video conversion. The setup and power required to convert videos as they're uploaded is insane. You could have a pre-determined conversion system. For example, through an app that comes with the proper codec installed, and the conversion is done on the users PC before being uploaded in a ready-to-go format, but that again makes for a more restrictive user experience.


You have to look at who you are hoping to bring over, in terms of content produces and also viewers. Then look at it in a realistic way to see how feasible the project would be on a larger scale. Throw aside the $10k project cost. It will be astronomically higher. But the first thing you should do is make a proof of concept. Build it on your own computer, and see it in action. Then go about calculating costs for expanding. It's not an easy project. Each and every member here would love to have access to a 120fps video site. But the biggest problems I see are:


1) Business Model. If there is a charge, I can't be bothered to sign up for it. Even though I'm paying $8 for Netflix, $8 for Hulu, $5 for a US proxy for those services, my web server, my web shop, etc etc..I just don't see enough of an incentive to pay for a limited use service.


2) As I mentioned, Bandwidth, Hard Disk space, and Processing capacity (GPU Encoding) is going to require some very expensive equipment, or create a very sub-par service that...going back to #1, will be restrictive.


3) Content...content...content...It is near impossible to capture 120fps content for most people. You can't buy equipment for under $5k to handle a 120fps source capture. Even for a 30fps 1440p capture, the cheapest equipment I could find was $2k and it wasn't guaranteed to work all that well. Who is going to be able to capture what kind of content that people would be willing to pay $$ to see?




I honestly think...and I'm going to talk to my lawyer next week to see if there's a way for me to patent this next week, that the best solution here is to cheat. Look at SVP (Smooth Video Project). It is a truly beautiful piece of tech. They've also linked it into YouTube, so you can open your YouTube videos into MPC (Media Player Classic) and run them at your refresh rate. So what I want to do is patent web-based interpolation. It would allow you to essentially cheat and run standard 30FPS content at 60FPS for the 99% of people who only have 60Hz displays, and 100FPS+ for those of us with better tech-sense. All without the added expense associated with your project.


Unfortunately, technology hasn't quite caught up to our level of ambition. I hope you ignore everything I said here and pursue your dreams as we would all benefit from it. I come from a low-risk business background so it's only natural for me to be skeptical. But who knows. You could be on to the next big thing.

Cpt.Teacup
08-22-2013, 05:28 AM
Since it's such a niche product, you will probably have to rely on donations and premium services to keep it up and running. If you were to become big, you would have to rely on ads and optional subscriptions and maybe premium services depending on the userbase. (Not everyone is a Scrooge like Hyper! :p)

Video streaming is one of the most expensive and resource intensive internet services to maintain and comes with all sorts of financial and legal complications. It is definitely not something you could do in your basement.

I think you need to make a specific outline of what you want to do with this HFR video hosting site. What is your service? Who is your audience? How can you provide your service to your audience? What do you need to create this service? What do you need to maintain this service? Are you in a position to dedicate yourself to this project? Make sure you have a plan and make sure it's foolproof.

Keep in mind that Youtube is not even prepared for 60fps, much less 120fps. Once GPU native hardware recording hits the market people are going to need somewhere to host their new HFR videos and I wouldn't be surprised if a new video streaming site took the reigns, perhaps that site could be yours.


In other news, Twitch.tv allows 1080p@60fps streaming and it looks gorgeous, I'm not sure if they allow any higher resolution or framerate.

Shadman
08-22-2013, 01:13 PM
Guys, he is 40, not 20 like me :p but it is pretty out there. I have even more thought on how I'd do it, but its not my project ;) though I'd like to see it succeed. Better than twitch.tv

houstonian
08-22-2013, 04:46 PM
In other news, Twitch.tv allows 1080p@60fps streaming and it looks gorgeous, I'm not sure if they allow any higher resolution or framerate.

Can you send me a link to the page where Twitch.tv says they allow 1080p@60fps? By they way I'd post a link to a conversation on Vimeo where 60 fps is discussed and it says more than once that it's not supported, but I'm a newbie so if I post another link I think my post will be delayed like my other ones. Just Google "1080p at 60fps quality not honored by Vimeo? on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/forums/topic:103884)"

In regard to HFRvideo.com being a niche product, it's not really the video viewing that would be so niche in my estimation, but the uploading. I believe there is a broad audience of people who would appreciate viewing high-frame-rate videos (not necessarily gaming videos, but videos shot with cameras) because they are so beautiful.

houstonian
08-23-2013, 02:18 PM
Actually the forum software apparently treated my pasted text from Google as a link so you should be able to click it and go directly to the page rather than Googling it.

Shadman
08-23-2013, 02:26 PM
Yeah, I think that's what we are saying. Capturing and uploading >30fps videos isn't a "school project to upload" type thing, or somewhere to watch Lady bugs have sex. And watching it might not be so limited, but people still need to be convinced you can see faster than 30Hz, so slightly less niche

Cpt.Teacup
08-23-2013, 05:14 PM
Can you send me a link to the page where Twitch.tv says they allow 1080p@60fps?

I don't know if there is a page saying that, I just know that it's possible because I have watched quite a few streams at 60fps.

It would be nice if we could automatically have videos spread across multiple hosting sites so we wouldn't have to deal with crappy monopolies like Youtube.

HyperMatrix
08-23-2013, 08:40 PM
I don't know if there is a page saying that, I just know that it's possible because I have watched quite a few streams at 60fps.

It would be nice if we could automatically have videos spread across multiple hosting sites so we wouldn't have to deal with crappy monopolies like Youtube.

Are you sure it wasn't 60fps at 720p?

Cpt.Teacup
08-24-2013, 02:40 AM
Are you sure it wasn't 60fps at 720p?

I have seen both 720p and 1080p at 60fps. Although, now I'm unsure because I can't remember any specific stream that was 1080p and 60fps, the streams I usually watch are only 720p.

Can anyone give some examples of video bitrates at various qualities? I have no sense of what is a lot and what is a little.

HyperMatrix
08-24-2013, 03:49 AM
I have seen both 720p and 1080p at 60fps. Although, now I'm unsure because I can't remember any specific stream that was 1080p and 60fps, the streams I usually watch are only 720p.

Can anyone give some examples of video bitrates at various qualities? I have no sense of what is a lot and what is a little.



It's just that...from a live-compression and bandwidth standpoint, 1080p@60fps is really rough. You'd need around 10mbps upload to be able to upload that. This, again, is not even taking into consideration that you have to have live compression as well. I only know of one card in the market that can even record 1080p@60fps, and it's not "common" by any means. And the even bigger problem....the video file it produces, is roughly 250MB per second.


I know of 1080p30fps, and 720p60fps, but I haven't heard of anyone streaming 1080p60fps.

Cpt.Teacup
08-24-2013, 05:06 AM
I was probably remembering wrongly then. Sorry to get anyone's hopes up. :(

houstonian
08-24-2013, 01:57 PM
Yeah, I think that's what we are saying. Capturing and uploading >30fps videos isn't a "school project to upload" type thing, or somewhere to watch Lady bugs have sex. And watching it might not be so limited, but people still need to be convinced you can see faster than 30Hz, so slightly less niche

It would be nice to have a number of comparison videos on my site to show the difference between 30 and 60 fps, etc. so that people can SEE that they can see the difference. It could show side-by-side 30 and 60 just by doubling the frames of the 30 fps side to include both clips in the same video, or it could show before and after, again by doubling the frames. There could also be a video comparing 24/30/60/120 if the video itself is 120 fps, since 24 fps could show 5 frames for every single frame of the original video.

houstonian
08-24-2013, 02:01 PM
By the way, I don't plan on permanently managing the site all by myself, nor do I plan on building the whole thing myself. I've got subcontractors who work for me in web development, and I plan on letting a company or corporation take over the site once it proves that it is sustainable. I just want to retain an interest in it and possibly manage it.

Shadman
08-24-2013, 02:10 PM
And maybe Google will buy it like they did YouTube and you get lots of money

HyperMatrix
08-24-2013, 04:49 PM
It would be nice to have a number of comparison videos on my site to show the difference between 30 and 60 fps, etc. so that people can SEE that they can see the difference. It could show side-by-side 30 and 60 just by doubling the frames of the 30 fps side to include both clips in the same video, or it could show before and after, again by doubling the frames. There could also be a video comparing 24/30/60/120 if the video itself is 120 fps, since 24 fps could show 5 frames for every single frame of the original video.



I think the video framerate comparison option would be great. I know HTML5 has a host of video control features, including (I believe) the option to set the framerate. So if you used a 120fps video like the 28 second BF3 clip I uploaded in another thread recently, you could have it set through javascript to change the framerate on click. May want to consider a catchier name as well, by the way. And have you looked at how you are going to handle the uploaded video conversion queue? There was recently a 60fps 1080p capture card released I Japan, which means it will soon become common. That means 1080p60fps content will soon be much easier to come by.


All in all I think there is a need for higher frame rate content. I think many people aren't aware of it because they haven't compared the 2 to see the difference. The only reason it may sound like I'm scrutinizing a lot of things is because I want to make sure everything is thought out because I'm hoping you are successful. It would be greatly beneficial to our community. Why don't you try making a sample frame rate switcher with the BF3 video I've uploaded at the 24/30/60/120 rates you were talking about.

Cpt.Teacup
08-24-2013, 06:35 PM
And maybe Google will buy it like they did YouTube and you get lots of money

Whatever you do, don't sell it to Google!

Shadman
08-25-2013, 02:32 PM
Whatever you do, don't sell it to Google!

I'd rather Google than Microsoft

HyperMatrix
08-25-2013, 03:37 PM
I'd rather Google than Microsoft

I don't like google. The last straw for me was when they decided to filter/alter search results so sites that received notices or complaints against them wouldn't be near the top of the results. Google today is the monopoly that Microsoft used to be. I'm rooting for MS. Though the Xbox 1 is quite disappointing and I am worried about the cost/benefit of that massive cloud service that it will be tied to.

Cpt.Teacup
08-25-2013, 08:14 PM
I would rather get some newcomers instead, Google and Microsoft are both evil bloated companies.

houstonian
08-27-2013, 11:01 AM
I think the video framerate comparison option would be great. I know HTML5 has a host of video control features, including (I believe) the option to set the framerate. So if you used a 120fps video like the 28 second BF3 clip I uploaded in another thread recently, you could have it set through javascript to change the framerate on click. May want to consider a catchier name as well, by the way. And have you looked at how you are going to handle the uploaded video conversion queue? There was recently a 60fps 1080p capture card released I Japan, which means it will soon become common. That means 1080p60fps content will soon be much easier to come by.

I think you misunderstood what I was describing about the frame rate comparison. What I was thinking of is something much simpler than that. That is, a video that contains the multiple framerates within itself, such as a split screen that shows more than one frame rate at the same time. If it were a 60 fps video, it could compare 60 and 30 fps within the video. If it were a 120 fps video, it could compare 120, 60, 30 and 24 fps within the same video, simply by duplicating frames for the lower framerates during the editing process (this is actually done automatically by editing software when importing a lower framerate clip into the project, and is also easily done with Avisynth).


The only reason it may sound like I'm scrutinizing a lot of things is because I want to make sure everything is thought out because I'm hoping you are successful. It would be greatly beneficial to our community.

I appreciate your concern for the success of the project. After reading your post, I've decided to put up a development version of the site on cheap hosting and try things out sooner than later, using PHP Motion as the script. It has plugins to do most of the things I want to do, and I am considering using it for the production version. I am not planning to build the site from scratch ($10K wouldn't cover that, especially with hosting costs). I expect a great deal of the $10K, if I can raise it, to be taken up by the massive hosting costs associated with getting the site to a point where it is sustained by ad revenue. PHP Motion uses Flash-based players. I don't know if anyone will achieve smooth playback of 120 fps on a Flash video player, even with a machine like yours HyperMatrix, but I'd like your help in testing it. I know 50 fps works fine on a Flash player, from watching a 50 fps video on Engadget, and I'm not sure if I've also seen 60 fps in Flash, but I think maybe I did on Viddler, and I was using an old computer at least for Engadget. HTML5 playback would have to be added to the site later after there is enough of a revenue stream to support the integration of it into the site. 120 fps would be experimental at best from the get-go and I'm planning to launch the site as a beta site to begin with.


Whatever you do, don't sell it to Google!

I'd rather Google than Microsoft

I don't like google. The last straw for me was when they decided to filter/alter search results so sites that received notices or complaints against them wouldn't be near the top of the results. Google today is the monopoly that Microsoft used to be. I'm rooting for MS. Though the Xbox 1 is quite disappointing and I am worried about the cost/benefit of that massive cloud service that it will be tied to.

I would rather get some newcomers instead, Google and Microsoft are both evil bloated companies.

With very few exceptions, it's called "the highest bidder".

houstonian
08-27-2013, 02:23 PM
May want to consider a catchier name as well, by the way.

Yes, I know HFRvideo.com is rather plain and doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and I'm very open to suggestions of available domains. On the other hand, HFRvideo.com is short, says what it is, and may be good for SEO. "HFR" is also now an industry term. But please, let me know if any of you have any other ideas.


And have you looked at how you are going to handle the uploaded video conversion queue?

One thought is by not re-encoding compliant files. PHP Motion has a mod for it that works this way, although it might have to be further modded to check for all necessary compliance instead of just that it is an mp4 file. In this case, only the lower resolution (flv) version of the video would have to be re-encoded, converted to 60 fps or lower for the flv version. I would also think that uploading the final file for HD videos would be preferable for uploaders because of no second reduction in quality. However, that being said, reportedly cloud hosting should be able to address a shortage of processing power for conversion of uploaded videos.

BlackOctagon
08-27-2013, 02:44 PM
BLITZvids.com?

Shadman
08-27-2013, 03:51 PM
BLITZvids.com?

Sounds cheesy. Though I don't really have anything myself. :screwy:

BlackOctagon
08-28-2013, 12:44 AM
Blitvids.TUBULAR?!

HyperMatrix
08-28-2013, 04:06 AM
I think you misunderstood what I was describing about the frame rate comparison. What I was thinking of is something much simpler than that. That is, a video that contains the multiple framerates within itself, such as a split screen that shows more than one frame rate at the same time. If it were a 60 fps video, it could compare 60 and 30 fps within the video. If it were a 120 fps video, it could compare 120, 60, 30 and 24 fps within the same video, simply by duplicating frames for the lower framerates during the editing process (this is actually done automatically by editing software when importing a lower framerate clip into the project, and is also easily done with Avisynth).



I appreciate your concern for the success of the project. After reading your post, I've decided to put up a development version of the site on cheap hosting and try things out sooner than later, using PHP Motion as the script. It has plugins to do most of the things I want to do, and I am considering using it for the production version. I am not planning to build the site from scratch ($10K wouldn't cover that, especially with hosting costs). I expect a great deal of the $10K, if I can raise it, to be taken up by the massive hosting costs associated with getting the site to a point where it is sustained by ad revenue. PHP Motion uses Flash-based players. I don't know if anyone will achieve smooth playback of 120 fps on a Flash video player, even with a machine like yours HyperMatrix, but I'd like your help in testing it. I know 50 fps works fine on a Flash player, from watching a 50 fps video on Engadget, and I'm not sure if I've also seen 60 fps in Flash, but I think maybe I did on Viddler, and I was using an old computer at least for Engadget. HTML5 playback would have to be added to the site later after there is enough of a revenue stream to support the integration of it into the site. 120 fps would be experimental at best from the get-go and I'm planning to launch the site as a beta site to begin with.





My new cpu came in today. Finished delidding and installing. Tweaked ram settings a little bit. Finally crossed 140GFlops on IntelBurnTest/LinPack. So I'm ready to benchmark at any time.


Regarding the framerate selector, I think you should look into making it happen. I googled some code and it seems to be fairly simple to do. Hell if I find some free time I may play around with the idea myself. I think it'd be neat to showcase that on 120Hz.Net as a tool for people with 120Hz monitors to show the difference between 24/30/60/120fps to their friends in a very easy to see manner.


For your site, HTML5 is definitely the better format to go with after you're up and running. If you don't want to do conversion on files after they're uploaded, you may want to consider a GUI for an encoder that allows file selection, and automatically prepares a video according to a few presets you've programmed into it. Then the consumer will have ready to go files. In the future, you can have this same app upload the file directly to your server after conversion.


And yes I agree that you should start trialing privately as soon as you can. You'll get a lot of great ideas and avoid many problems that would come up later.

houstonian
09-02-2013, 03:31 AM
I got some cheap hosting with a free install of PHPMotion this weekend, and have so far achieved smooth playback of a 120 fps web version of HyperMatrix' game capture at 640x360 (low res version) on an old 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 with a GeForce 8600, but it was using the default Sorenson Spark codec so I'm in process of converting everything to encode to h264 for both low-res and HD. The test video didn't play smoothly on my old Dell laptop so I created a 60 fps version that played fine. I'm thinking the low-res versions have to be 60 fps to play on a wide enough variety of hardware to make the site a success. I still have to test HD at 120 fps. The low-res version may have to end up being h264 in an flv container for the time being because of the script mod I'm planning to use. I can't use Sorenson Spark because at 120 fps, the bitrate is way too high for decent quality and was almost as high for the 640x360 video as Hyper's 8 mbit original. I'm confident that with h264 I'll be able to get low-res YouTube-like quality at about 1 or at the most 2 mbit/s and 60 fps. Once I get the encoding settings ready for the two video versions, I'll let you test them out HyperMatrix, as I'm confident I don't have the hardware to playback 1280x720 at 120 fps, especially using a flash player. Like I've said, 120 fps will be experimental at least to begin with, and only for those with fast enough hardware.

houstonian
09-11-2013, 04:20 PM
I've applied the mod I intended to use to the PHPMotion script that I'm using for the development site, and now the script is successfully generating two versions of a video upon upload, one HD and one SD. However, the SD version is an flv and I think it's encoded via Sorenson Spark. Because of the high frame rate, I need to make both versions encoded in h264 for smaller filesize, so this will require a little tweaking but looking at the code it doesn't seem like it will be very hard. Once I get the two versions encoding the way I want, I still need to replace the default PHPMotion player with JWPlayer, which is recommended for use with the mod, and modify the code further so the player has an HD button to toggle the playback quality. After I get that done, I'm planning to invite one or more people with fast computers, including HyperMatrix, to test the HD versions of test videos on the site at 120 fps and see if JWPlayer is even capable of 120 fps with HD.

Everyone can keep up with my development by following me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/hfrvideo or through my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/hfrvideo.

LNCPapa
09-11-2013, 10:23 PM
This sounds awesome houston

houstonian
09-12-2013, 05:53 AM
Glad you think so LNCPapa!

HyperMatrix
09-13-2013, 01:56 AM
Glad you think so LNCPapa!



I'm ready to test it out whenever you have it up and running. Just drop me a private message. Do either of the players you are planning to use have GPU hardware acceleration, btw? Or will I be looking at pure inefficient CPU crunching?

houstonian
09-13-2013, 12:32 PM
I am in the process of integrating JWPlayer for both HD and SD versions of videos. Apparently JWPlayer is compatible with flash hardware acceleration, depending on the embed code, but one thing I don't know is how many GPU's can perform hardware acceleration for 120 fps videos. I tried 120 fps in HD on my GeForce 8600 GTS card with h264 decoding (not in a flash player but in a media player using VDPAU) and it seemed to choke on it, although lower framerates look fine.

Even though JWPlayer is both HTML5 and flash compatible, I don't know how easy it would be to get the HTML5 version integrated into my site and that might require significantly more time, although it would be preferred. If my funding campaign is successful, hopefully I can afford to make that work or find someone who can.

houstonian
09-13-2013, 01:02 PM
Apparently JWPlayer is compatible with flash hardware acceleration, depending on the embed code, but one thing I don't know is how many GPU's can perform hardware acceleration for 120 fps videos. I tried 120 fps in HD on my GeForce 8600 GTS card with h264 decoding (not in a flash player but in a media player using VDPAU) and it seemed to choke on it, although lower framerates look fine.

HyperMatrix, and anyone else, can you confirm that your GPU was performing hardware acceleration for smooth playback of Hyper's 120 fps gaming video?

houstonian
09-19-2013, 07:59 PM
There has been some delay with the modifications to the development site and I've requested help from a programmer more familiar with PHPMotion. However, I have created a test page using JWPlayer (the player I intend to use for PHPMotion) and JWPlayer works in either flash mode or HTML5 mode depending on browser capabilities. I'm pleased to announce that all four test videos on my test page played fine on a Pentium 4 machine with a GeForce 8600 GTS. There are two videos in both HD and SD, for a total of four. One video, Hyper's game video, is 120 fps and the others are 60 fps. I tested in Firefox which used flash player mode. I just got the page up so haven't done much testing yet, and I'd like to add more videos.

Hyper, I'll send you a PM with the URL after I post this. Anyone else who's interested in testing, PM me.

HyperMatrix
09-19-2013, 08:01 PM
Hey. Sorry. Been busy with work. I'll check your link and monitor gpu usage and report back later tonight.

houstonian
09-28-2013, 04:53 PM
The development site is now basically functional, but it doesn't work in Chrome or on mobile devices yet - some problem with the HTML5. You can upload hfr videos and watch them in SD or HD. Everyone, please pm me if you want access.

houstonian
09-28-2013, 05:46 PM
I just put a temporary band-aid on the JW Player on my site so it works in Chrome but only in flash mode, not HTML5. Please help me start adding HFR videos to the site so I can get a head-start before my funding campaign is over! I'd like to also feature the site in a funding video. Currently there is a 1-Gig upload limit. PM me for access. Thanks!

houstonian
10-01-2013, 07:10 PM
There's a problem: my webhost for the development site (Glowhost) reportedly has its settings such that if I try to have the script generate an HD mp4 of an uploaded vid that's longer than about a minute (depending on settings), something times out and the server kills the process. A tech for Glowhost said I would have to move up to a much more expensive hosting package in order to have those server settings changed, which are in place because of shared hosting. Well, unless my funding campaign is successful I can't afford to move up to the other package, so here's what I'm planning to do:

Allow uploads of final HD mp4 files directly, from which an SD version will be generated by the server. The mp4 settings will have to conform to 1280x720, 48-120 fps, 5000 kbps, 128 kbps AAC audio (stereo) or, get this... 512 kbps AAC surround sound up to 7.1! Take that YouTube!

houstonian
10-04-2013, 06:57 PM
I've discovered that more than one encoder GUI does not have 512 kbps audio as an option for AAC surround sound, so I've decided to make the standard a range between 448 and 768. People can use a higher or lower bitrate depending on the number of channels, and the SD version of each video (encoded by the site server) will have a stereo downmix. This is all setup right now on the development site except it doesn't enforce the compliance yet.

houstonian
10-07-2013, 11:35 AM
Fixed the HTML5 player and it was one of those "duh" moments - the javascript file for html5 had apparently been deleted. PM me if you want to see the dev site! I've got a couple of videos that demonstrate 120, 60, 30 and 24 fps all at the same time!

houstonian
10-07-2013, 05:35 PM
I've decided to temporarily make a 120 fps demo video public until the number of JWPlayer free playbacks or the bandwidth runs out. You can see it here while it lasts: http://www.hfrvideo.com/video_iframe.htm

Make sure to set your monitor refresh rate to 120 hz or else as high as possible!

BlackOctagon
10-08-2013, 04:19 AM
Sweet, thanks. Will check out when I get home

Sent from dumbphone (pls excuse typos and dumbness)

LNCPapa
10-08-2013, 07:39 AM
Yeah - I almost wasted some of your bandwidth viewing it here at work but realized before hitting play that I won't be able to see 120hz here. I'll check it out when I get home.

houstonian
10-08-2013, 08:53 AM
The 120 fps version was created via Avisynth using frame interpolation, because I don't have a 120 fps camera. I'm hoping some people with iPhone 5s's will be willing to upload some 120 fps footage. I've asked about it on Twitter, but so far noone's tweeted me back or messaged me.

Shadman
10-08-2013, 02:18 PM
I have a GoPro Silver, which I believe does 120fps recording, but it's at a lower resolution. I don't quite remember how low; I'll mess with it tonight.

LNCPapa
10-08-2013, 10:37 PM
Wow that is strange. It actually looks like you are traveling faster in the 120hz video even though I know they are perfectly sync'd. It also puts quite the load on one of my GPUs - about 60% utilization.

Cpt.Teacup
10-09-2013, 12:56 AM
Wow that is strange. It actually looks like you are traveling faster in the 120hz video even though I know they are perfectly sync'd. It also puts quite the load on one of my GPUs - about 60% utilization.

Yeah, that's one of the strange effects of smooth motion when you're used to low refresh rates, probably had something to do with The Hobbit seeming weird to a lot of people.

houstonian
10-09-2013, 09:37 AM
I'd like to see a racing video from the driver's perspective at 360 fps or so, in Ultra HD and 3D. But it would also be cool to have such a video on my site at 120 fps.

I'd like to add 3D capability to my site once JWPlayer adds that feature.

shjnkute95
02-15-2014, 04:52 AM
Hi ! first, sorry about bad Eng ! :D

i've watch your tutorial video. and i'm very confuse about this "option" : "change so Video and Audio durations match".

virtualdub is only be used for .avi files.
but my nvidia shadow play only have .mp4 output files. so i can't use virtualdub.
but sadly i can't find any soft that have the option "change so Video and Audio durations match" !!!

so i've try to reduce the speed of video to 0.5x times. now, the video and the sound have the same length. i exported it with 30FPS configuration. but when i upload it on youtube, and x2 speed, FRAPs say it's 60FPS (of course. 30FPS x2 = 60FP2S ...), but the vid isn't smooth ! the same with 30fps ...

any solutions? :(

cicala
03-27-2014, 12:26 AM
A faster if not easier way to do this...

Premiere Pro, assume the framerate of 30 fps from a source of 60 fps (or 29.97 ofc depending on source) done by selecting Interpreting imported footage,
Using Audition to achieve perfect pitch and stretch quality,

No need for virtualdub and much faster for people who prefer a more seamless workflow.


Cpt.Teacup (http://120hz.net/member.php?2404-Cpt.Teacup)[/COLOR]]How do I force the video to use the HTML5 player?

Find a userscript called ViewTube, similar idea to YousableTubeFix but adds 2x and WebM support to 100% of videos. Basically a new player in itself.


Vimeo I believe allows 60fps. But they don't allow game content/guides there. It's for artsy stuff.

Audio quality is bad and can't do anything about that

Vimeo isn't cordoned off to gamers, its for all kinds of content it's just you won't find a large audience of people who are into games. And people refuse to use it because of the uploading size limits. 60 fps I'm not 100% sure of how it all works there, I have tried uploading a source of 60fps before but It didn't seem to work. But I was over my HD quota at the time.

Use Adobe Audition, you can do wonderful things to audio and get it to basically 99% of the original. Doing a few tests over the last week think i got the perfect settings.

So close to getting the audio sorted


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF-kIqgJ0pI

cicala
03-27-2014, 02:14 AM
A faster if not easier way to do this...

Premiere Pro, assume the framerate of 30 fps from a source of 60 fps (or 29.97 ofc depending on source) done by selecting Interpreting imported footage,
Using Audition to achieve perfect pitch and stretch quality,

No need for virtualdub and much faster for people who prefer a more seamless workflow.


Cpt.Teacup[/B] (http://120hz.net/member.php?2404-Cpt.Teacup)]How do I force the video to use the HTML5 player?

Find a userscript called ViewTube, similar idea to YousableTubeFix but adds 2x and WebM support to 100% of videos. Basically a new player in itself.


Vimeo I believe allows 60fps. But they don't allow game content/guides there. It's for artsy stuff.

Audio quality is bad and can't do anything about that

Vimeo isn't cordoned off to gamers, its for all kinds of content it's just you won't find a large audience of people who are into games. And people refuse to use it because of the uploading size limits. 60 fps I'm not 100% sure of how it all works there, I have tried uploading a source of 60fps before but It didn't seem to work. But I was over my HD quota at the time.

Use Adobe Audition, you can do wonderful things to audio and get it to basically 99% of the original. Doing a few tests over the last week think i got the perfect settings.

So close to getting the audio sorted


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF-kIqgJ0pI