Cure for lag? ^_^

Aki Ameko · Post by **Aki Ameko** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:48 pm

Ok, downloaded the cpuz. Under memory>size it said 1.024 Gigbytes (or 1024 MBytes)

Well not sure if it's HuffYUV or whatever. But I did do some things with the avisynth script such as resizing, deinterlacing, converting to RGB, and changing the field order of some of the footage.

Does any of that help?

Brad · Post by **Brad** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:30 pm

Kaisune: Are you using the method that I typed out for you in your General Video thread? I showed you how to make Huffyuv clips of your scenes to import into WMM.

If you are using this method, you SHOULDN'T be having any problems (and seeing as how you have a gig of RAM, I think it's also safe to assume that you probably have a relatively decent CPU. I'm making this assumption on the fact that since you don't know the specs of your system, it was probably a pre-built computer from a vendor such as Dell or what-have-you, and if they put in a gig of RAM, then it likely also has at least a somewhat decent CPU. I would also assume that it should be able to handle Huffyuv video perfectly fine, considering that I used to edit with Huffyuv clips on my Pentium II 333mhz computer with 128mb of RAM

)

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:37 pm

I don't get any lag even when using some transitions and effects on clips.. if your script has a lot of picture quality adjustments your clip will play slow.. I recommend adding the ones needed to make your footage look nicer after you have finished your video, witch is what I did with my last two videos.

I'll just copy/paste what I wrote in the video profiles, pretty nice concept IMHO

"Some technical info: While I was editing I used AVS scripts in Vegas 6.0 using VFAPI and the avs scripts only had fps adjustments, deinterlacing methods where they were needed(didn't need to worry about this with the "End of Evangelion" and the "Death & Rebirth" footage because it was already progressive) after I was done editing the video.. all I did was simply change the script to a more advanced script with more advanced script settings that cleans up the footage witch would of slowed down the video playback if I put them in before I edited.. then I made another fake avi of the AVS scripts with VFAPI, loaded up my project again and then exported. I recommend editing this way because it takes less space to edit the VOB directly than to make a lossless compression of the anime with codecs like Huffuv/Lagarith because it will get 10x as big than the VOB files and if you decided to edit with lossless compressed video, the playback will be a lot slower than if you just used the VOBs directly. There is even programs out there that let you split vob files without any quality loss like Chopper XP.. so if you just want to take small clips from an anime and don't want a massively large lossless Huffuv/Lagarith file to edit with.. just chop all the scenes you want with the vob splitter and then make a project file of all the vob files with DGIndex, make an avs scipt with AviSynth and then just throw the avs file in your video editing program(if your video editing program does not support avs scripts, use VFAPI to make a fake avi file out of the avs file.) Hope this info helps a bit!"

Vfapi works really well with just about any editing program that I've used including WMM

Brad · Post by **Brad** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:24 pm

x_rex30 wrote:I recommend adding the ones needed to make your footage look nicer after you have finished your video, witch is what I did with my last two videos.

This completely defeats the purpose of pre-processing. If you add those filters to your final video, things like added effects, blurs, some transitions, etc. are all going to be filtered too, when they really dont need to be, and can thusly make the image look worse. In some instances, it's okay, like if you're doing a video with ONLY straight cuts. Otherwise, it's strongly suggested that you pre-process your video source.

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 pm

AtomX wrote:
x_rex30 wrote:I recommend adding the ones needed to make your footage look nicer after you have finished your video, witch is what I did with my last two videos.
This completely defeats the purpose of pre-processing. If you add those filters to your final video, things like added effects, blurs, some transitions, etc. are all going to be filtered too, when they really dont need to be, and can thusly make the image look worse. In some instances, it's okay, like if you're doing a video with ONLY straight cuts. Otherwise, it's strongly suggested that you pre-process your video source.

All I did with my EVA footage was add HQDN3D() after I finished editing and it really slows down the video if it's in there before I start editing.. what's wrong with adding that after the video is finished? Does that mean there is something wrong with my video now because I didn't do pre-prcessing? I adjusted the framerate and IVTC'd the Platinum addition fooate before I edited witch if I messed with after I finished editing the scenes would be all shifted around. I don't see whats wrong with just having basic setting like that when editing and then adding some filters to clean up the footage later.

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:58 pm

AtomX wrote:
x_rex30 wrote:I recommend adding the ones needed to make your footage look nicer after you have finished your video, witch is what I did with my last two videos.
This completely defeats the purpose of pre-processing. If you add those filters to your final video, things like added effects, blurs, some transitions, etc. are all going to be filtered too

Oh I missed this here. I think you misunderstand, This isn't after I "Render as"(Vegas) or "Export"(Premiere). I do the adjustments before I render it so it does not filter any effects, filters you used in the editing program.

Aki Ameko · Post by **Aki Ameko** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:55 pm

AtomX: Yes, I did use the method you perscribed, and it works really well with the exception of the lag.

Here's a copy of my AviSynth scripts before I made them into clips:

mpeg2source("C:\blah.d2v")
KernelDeint(order=1, threshold=10)
ADSwapFieldOrder
Crop(8,0,-8,-0)
LanczosResize(640,480)
ConvertToRGB32()
AssumeFPS(29.97)

(The other script is the same thing excluding the field order swap)

Aki Ameko · Post by **Aki Ameko** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:19 pm

I was wondering, could multiple desktops and lots of image and music files cause lag? 'Cause my comp has a lot of that crap on it. *deletes some un-needed pics*

Zero1 · Post by **Zero1** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:03 pm

Kerneldeint and lanczos resize will eat a lot of cpu time. If lag is really a problem it would be best to export to some form of lossless coding. You could use HuffYUV, Lagarith, or if your harddrive is up to it (both speed and size wise) raw YV12 (which for 640x480 is 450KB per frame).

Also you will get better image quality using bilinear resize, it will appear softer than lanczos, but you won't get ringing (haloing, or those light edges). The rule of thumb is bilinear/precise bilinear for downsizing and bicubic/lanczos for upsizing (you shouldn't be upsizing anyway unless necessary, it doesn't improve the quality and takes up more space).

And yeah, even HuffYUV can lag if you have a slow ass hard drive, there is more to lag than just CPU speed. RAM and HD are huge factors in video editing.

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:14 pm

Zero1 wrote:Also you will get better image quality using bilinear resize, it will appear softer than lanczos, but you won't get ringing (haloing, or those light edges). The rule of thumb is bilinear/precise bilinear for downsizing and bicubic/lanczos for upsizing (you shouldn't be upsizing anyway unless necessary, it doesn't improve the quality and takes up more space).

Damn, I've always been using lanczos..

do you know a page that explains about that.. I hope haven't been butchering the image quality.

AVISynth Manual wrote:Lanczos
LanczosResize is an alternative to BicubicResize with high values of c about 0.6 ... 0.75 which produces quite strong sharpening.
It usually offers better quality (fewer artifacts) and a sharp image.