Search options (Page 8 of 8)

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.

V2: faster, should use this as default if you not encountering any problems. model V2 47+ has a bug preventing you from using performance boost off.(It means it will run trt command on every video with a different resolution.)
4.13v1lite: lite is just a name, you may think of it as 4.135 which runs faster than 4.13
ensemble: this one will cost half the performance of the normal model. I couldn't see much difference from this, just use a better model instead.

try to use model in performance order: 4.6 > 4.9 > 4.13 lite > 4.13 and decide which one you like the most

4.9 is a sweet pot for me which has low artifact and runs faster than 4.13 20%

Could anyone fully clarify the difference between the regular models, the V2 models and lite models please?

e.g. 4.13 vs 4.13 lite vs 4.13v2 vs 4.13v2 lite.

It would help solidify my understanding!