Search options (Page 6 of 7)

RickyAstle98 wrote:

Really why SVP developers cant develop RIFE-SVP swapchain? It will suit for everyone, any type of content, any resolution, almost everything! My general idea about this quiet simple, SVP algorithm almost 10 times less resource-sensitive, but intermediate frames quality rises at high frame rate video source, 2K 24>144fps ~40-60 watts with 8-12 px grid and 21 shader, whats the problem RIFE@4K 2x and then SVP with higher pixel grid? Its going to be really smooth!
With this swapchain, 24>96@4K easy! Double peformance for 4K sources...

it's simple to do but not a good idea. it would produce a lot of artefacts.

537.58 eliminated the pan stutters for me.

My permanent setup is now 4K (3840x2160) with RIFE 4.4 with this driver. RIFE/SVP is set to double the frame rate. (with RTX 4090 @ 65% GPU usage)

For those who don't know, this makes all content (24fps) into 48fps. You MUST make a custom resolution to make your refresh rate 48Hz, or it will be stuttery because 48fps does not go into the default 60Hz/120Hz that the vast majority of monitors/TVs are.

4K 48fps @ 48Hz video is perfectly smooth. This is easy for SVP because it is just doubling the frame rate.

Other modes such as sync 24fps video to screen refresh, or fps x 2.5, or whole multiples, is really taxing on the GPU. An overclocked 4090 can't do it, even on the highest performing RIFE (4.4/4.6).

cemaydnlar wrote:

v1.14 v2 is the smoothest version of them all for me somehow...

v1.14 v2 is so smooth that I made sure to back everything up

cemaydnlar wrote:

It gave a weird error while caching but is somehow working without doing that caching cmd again.2nd i don't see any improvement for gpu usage. İt's the same as v.14. Is it normal?

If the messages come after the "profiling" statement then my understanding is that the warnings are part of the profiling process. As for the performance, that might depend on you GPU memory bandwidth. The Nvidia 3070Ti and above start at 600GB/s memory bandwidth. The 4070Ti has the same memory bandwidth as a 4080 at 700GB/s while the 3080 has even more than the 4080. Below these cards I don't know what the performance will be like with 4.14 "lite".

So far v14.4 lite uses more GPU than the non lite version. I thought it was may be because of the changes I made but I reverted back to SVP standard configs and it's the same. Maybe there is an issue they need to fix.

Update:
It uses about the same amount of GPU resources but it works in a different way which makes it more dependant on memory bandwidth than GPU resources.  I've read up a little on the new methodology and it is interesting the result is that the "lite" version may not be as "lite" before.

v14 runtime + 4.14 v2 is perfection. Really nice update

RickyAstle98 wrote:

zxcvbnm821 wrote:

I have the same problem here too
tried using v14.4, but the problem was not fixed

I dont have this problem, maybe you use target frame rate instead of interpolation factors? Because I do slomo video and see what happens on 25FPS video converted to 2.5x (no issues) (62.5FPS)
Then I do frame rate target at 60FPS and see your issue all the time, even without slomo effect! Dont use target framerate, factors work better!

Also this, make sure it's either 2x, 3x, 4x etc

Then open the drop down menu to the right of the slider, and enable at the bottom (Force Exact Value).

Is the bigger the number of the scene change threshold, the better?And why is my maximum number only 15%?

RIFE only works for 32-px aligned frame size, so we have two options (for example for 1920*1080 frame):
1. add 8px height black line, interpolate, cut away 8px line
2. cut 24px line --> interpolate 1920*1056 frame

SVP now does (1) for frame height <= 2560 and (2) for >2560.
If you want always do (1) then for now you can edit SVP 4\script\generate.js, line 458, change it to:

var pad_up = pad;

RickyAstle98 wrote:

Xenocyde wrote:

Decided to test 4.13 and 4.13 v2.

4.13 works well, Win resource monitor shows ~50% GPU utilization regardless of the video resolution. I tested with 720p and 1080p videos at 60 Hz. Shouldn't there be some sort of difference between 720p and 1080p? 720p even reaches 60% more often on my RTX 4080. Also, the 4.9 model included with SPV by default now has almost the same performance, mostly sitting at ~50% regardless of resolution.

4.13 v2 doesn't seem to be working, however. Every time I try to play a video, it compiles the cache file and after around 50 seconds it stops and the video plays without RIFE. Can't really see if it gives an error cuz the window closes fast.

Something is wrong bruh >
I have 10700K and RTX 4070 and here is my performance!
4.4v2 720p24>144 (<45% GPU usage) at 165Hz
4.12v2 720p24>144 (<65% GPU usage) at 165Hz
4.13v2 720p24>144 (<70% GPU usage) at 165Hz

I only test with 60 Hz cuz my screen is old af Have you tested with 60 Hz? I feel like the utilization might not change too much even if refresh is X4+ for me.

dawkinscm wrote:

Make sure you have a 4.13 onnx file in the "v2" folder. If you do then delete it and any files created by it, download the v2 onnx file again and put the new onnx file into the "v2" folder.

Deleted, redownlaoded, still doesn't work. Do I need some new version of Python or TRT maybe?

RickyAstle98 wrote:

hvs wrote:

Thanks you so much for this. Yes it's true that MPV is much more stable.

Thanks for the recommendation. When searching the solution for my problem, I read in this post regarding how v2 has much more advantage than v1..
So I tried 4.9 v2... but it seems like there's even Ensemble version, which I didn't find anywhere about it said here, or probably just missed the conversation regarding it.

4.9 V2 seems very stable for me, and the wait isnt that long either, i just have to wait for no more than 1 minute or two.
Tried to encode Kagejitsu S2 Ep 12 using it before i went to sleep too, but iirc it finished around 3 hours (because my pc auto shut down around that time).
The result is so great. the artifacts are almost none, and even if its there, its very subtle, which makes it worth the wait than watching the anime with live interpolation. This is a good option for me if I had no need to watch the anime ASAP.

All those talk aside, what I actually want to achieve is that soap effect that everyone hates. I am weird in that I love that soap effect XD.
I'll try 4.13 later I guess.

eh that was just my estimate for max time i waited (not timed).. its actually less than that ig. mostly around 30-1 mins. Ig it depends on the scene to interpolate

---------------
Also talking about CPU..
Can't we use GPU as a main to transcode? or is it only just mainly CPU with GPU as backup?

As I can say, I test 720p30>720p90 transcode, SVP window show 25% all the time, but my CPU maxed at 7% only during transcoding, NVENC encoder!
So its GPU mostly transcode...

Thanks. My SVP Transcode page show the advanced mode so i didnt see the NVENC encoder, it was somewhat hidden but after changing it to that, it only use around 30% of my cpu, and my gpu usage rocketed to 95~100%.
it transcoded in less than 30 min now. sweet.

Btw which one would be better, and what is the difference between AV1, H.264 or H.265?

flowreen91 wrote:

hvs wrote:

Would love to use MPV but I can't find the way to enable fps counter.

Try Shift + I or hold I to enable fps counter.
MPV seems faster than MPC-HC. It gives more stable fps.

hvs wrote:

I hope someone can guide me in getting Soap Opera effect using RIFE in SVP.

Try this and say if you get stuck or instructions are unclear :
https://www.svp-team.com/forum/viewtopi … 352#p83352

Thanks you so much for this. Yes it's true that MPV is much more stable.

aloola wrote:

hvs wrote:

I hope someone can guide me in getting Soap Opera effect using RIFE in SVP.

currently, the best quality that almost gets rid of the soap effect is models 4.12 and 4.13.

4.0->4.6: about the same quality and same performance
4.7->4.9: about the same quality and same performance, the performance cost +20% than 4.0->4.6
4.10->4.13: about the same quality and same performance, the performance cost +20% than 4.7->4.9
4.12lite, 4.13lite: performance between 4.7->4.9 and 4.10->4.13

my recommended models are: 4.6, 4.9 and 4.13

Thanks for the recommendation. When searching the solution for my problem, I read in this post regarding how v2 has much more advantage than v1..
So I tried 4.9 v2... but it seems like there's even Ensemble version, which I didn't find anywhere about it said here, or probably just missed the conversation regarding it.

4.9 V2 seems very stable for me, and the wait isnt that long either, i just have to wait for no more than 1 minute or two.
Tried to encode Kagejitsu S2 Ep 12 using it before i went to sleep too, but iirc it finished around 3 hours (because my pc auto shut down around that time).
The result is so great. the artifacts are almost none, and even if its there, its very subtle, which makes it worth the wait than watching the anime with live interpolation. This is a good option for me if I had no need to watch the anime ASAP.

All those talk aside, what I actually want to achieve is that soap effect that everyone hates. I am weird in that I love that soap effect XD.
I'll try 4.13 later I guess.

RickyAstle98 wrote:

Idk why you wait 5 minutes, maybe engine build is CPU limited? I have 10700K and RTX 4070 and NVMe too, but slower cache build time was 2m24sec only!

eh that was just my estimate for max time i waited (not timed).. its actually less than that ig. mostly around 30-1 mins. Ig it depends on the scene to interpolate

---------------
Also talking about CPU..
Can't we use GPU as a main to transcode? or is it only just mainly CPU with GPU as backup?

RickyAstle98 wrote:

What happen when someone upload already generated engine cache lock files for RTX 4070 users? Will it work without resolution optimization pass?

The actual generated files are all binary so you cannot understand what exactly they contain, but all we know it makes SVP interpolation faster which is good:
https://gyazo.com/7099f92f846ce0c57dab6ec3258ff4c5
And since a new one gets generated for every specific rife version + resolution + graphics card it would be safe to assume that it's always best to let it generate a fresh version for your specific configuration and never try to use already uploaded generated engine cache lock files for compatibility purposes.
If i just rename the engine cache files to use it on wrong configuration, MPC-HC mentions errors that it fails to start.
Wrong rife engine resolution error:
https://gyazo.com/6430b2a951b77dbc643ed9430f0be445
Wrong rife v2 engine found instead of v1 error:
https://gyazo.com/32117e51558d87e37f8c2451dd6fc7c3
But it seems to work if you run a v4.13 with a v4.10 engine file.
My suggestion would be to delete cache folder from here:
"C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\SVP4\cache"
every time you update rife models and let them generate fresh.