[Drael]

I love Kodi, and have been using it for ages. But now I discover this smooth video project. With a low loss encoding at a decent resolution, it makes for some very realistic motion and images. Unfortunately it only runs with media center atm.

I know that some people have preferences for lower frames, but it would be awesome to have the option of using smooth video project with Kodi, to get up to those higher 40-60 frames per second that make for realistic motion. So that video buffs can crank the resolution and frames while still using your awesome library system.

Could this be included as an option in the future?

[un1versal]

Not sure if you cant do something with Advancedsettings.xml#video (wiki)

Code:

<override>
      <fps>23.976</fps>       <!-- if the fps is between 23.966 and 23.986 -->
      <refresh>60.0</refresh> <!-- switch to the first found refreshrate that is between 59.99 and 60.01 -->
    </override>

    <override>
      <fpsmin>29.96</fpsmin>        <!-- You can also specify the fps range yourself -->
      <fpsmax>30.01</fpsmax>
      <refreshmin>59.0</refreshmin> <!-- Same for the refreshrate -->
      <refreshmax>61.0</refreshmax>
    </override>
  
    <!-- It none of the overrides match, or none of the refreshrates match any of the fps matching overrides, it will choose a fallback refreshrate. Fallbacks are process in order, if the first fallback doesn't match any refreshrate, it will try the next one until no fallbacks are left -->
    <fallback>
      <refresh>50.0</refresh> <!-- switch to the first found refreshrate that is between 49.99 and 50.01. -->
    </fallback>

[Drael]

Seems unlikely that would use the gpu and cpu to render extra inbetween frames. Although I appreciate the suggestion

[un1versal]

Well at least you tried the suggestion, right? SO you know for a fact what it does or it doesn't have the desired effect.

Yea just a thought anyway.

[Ned Scott]

Well at least you tried the suggestion, right? SO you know for a fact what it does or it doesn't have the desired effect.

Yea just a thought anyway.

It doesn't matter if he tried it or not. That has nothing to do with what he is talking about, and Kodi has no such feature.

[DJ_Izumi]

Frame interpolation... Yuck.

[un1versal]

Well at least you tried the suggestion, right? SO you know for a fact what it does or it doesn't have the desired effect.

Yea just a thought anyway.

It doesn't matter if he tried it or not. That has nothing to do with what he is talking about, and Kodi has no such feature.

If you read my first reply, you immediately would know Im not implying kodi has such feature and wasn't trying to imply it did, Just "wondering" if anything could be cheated with altering those values.
If the answer is no upon experimentation, then that's ok also.

[Drael]

Frame interpolation... Yuck.

Why because you don't like high frame rates? I did say as an option. For whatever reasons some people don't like realistic motion in video. Or did you mean for some other reason?

[Ned Scott]

If you read my first reply...

Yes... I did read your first reply, which is how I knew it your suggestion couldn't help him, regardless if he tried it or not. You were wondering, and I answered you. I'm glad we all understand the fundamentals of human communication. Long live the queen.

[DJ_Izumi]

Why because you don't like high frame rates? I did say as an option. For whatever reasons some people don't like realistic motion in video. Or did you mean for some other reason?

Because it's an implementation of machine vision, trying to interpolate visually complicated data. Even the advanced, slower than real time methods we use in the visual effects industry are something we AVOID using unless we have to use it. Want more frames? We crank the camera up on set instead.

[Ned Scott]

Frame interpolation... Yuck.

Why because you don't like high frame rates? I did say as an option. For whatever reasons some people don't like realistic motion in video. Or did you mean for some other reason?

I think it's because it causes very unrealistic motion. While it is entirely possible to use frame interpolation to dramatically improve video, it is limited to the type of movement on screen. Generically applying frame interpolation to an entire movie or TV show will give more unnatural motion than natural motion. Current software is just not "smart" enough to selectively apply it. That, coupled with the argument that the improvement is marginal for most videos, leads most people to hating this feature.

Especially since several TVs attempt to turn this on by default, resulting in very noticeable negative effects. Some people even feel nauseous when watching videos with frame interpolation.

Choosing a frame rate for a TV show is sometimes a specific artistic decision. Because of that, people also feel it is important to view the video as intended, rather than trying to "add more bass" to the video to make it look "better", in a matter of speaking.

[Drael]

Why because you don't like high frame rates? I did say as an option. For whatever reasons some people don't like realistic motion in video. Or did you mean for some other reason?

Because it's an implementation of machine vision, trying to interpolate visually complicated data. Even the advanced, slower than real time methods we use in the visual effects industry are something we AVOID using unless we have to use it. Want more frames? We crank the camera up on set instead.

Unfortunately most stuff whether TV or movies is filmed in lower frames. Partly because most projectors are limited to 24 fps.

[Drael]

Frame interpolation... Yuck.

Why because you don't like high frame rates? I did say as an option. For whatever reasons some people don't like realistic motion in video. Or did you mean for some other reason?

I think it's because it causes very unrealistic motion. While it is entirely possible to use frame interpolation to dramatically improve video, it is limited to the type of movement on screen. Generically applying frame interpolation to an entire movie or TV show will give more unnatural motion than natural motion. Current software is just not "smart" enough to selectively apply it. That, coupled with the argument that the improvement is marginal for most videos, leads most people to hating this feature.

Especially since several TVs attempt to turn this on by default, resulting in very noticeable negative effects. Some people even feel nauseous when watching videos with frame interpolation.

Choosing a frame rate for a TV show is sometimes a specific artistic decision. Because of that, people also feel it is important to view the video as intended, rather than trying to "add more bass" to the video to make it look "better", in a matter of speaking.

I doubt this is the same as what a TV does. My computer runs near to maximum CPU load, whilst utilising GPU in order to calculate these extra frames. I am unaware of any TVs with that kind of processing power.

For me this seems to result in more natural life-like motion, using smooth video project. Lips and faces move more like real life. Bodies. It's most noticeable in people, and looks very similar to peter jacksons high frame rate hobbit movies.

I am unsure what a TV would be doing, lacking to processing power to actually calculate the extra frames with any power. Never seen that. Doesn't sound like what I am talking about though.

[Drael]

Has any one here used smooth video project?

[Ned Scott]

Just because something causes a high CPU load doesn't mean a chip can't be made that is dedicated to doing that specific process. This is basically what hardware video decoding is, but instead of decoding it is doing video processing. That allows TVs to do complex, but specific, calculations in order to create the "in between" frames.

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/wtf-just-ha...ra-effect/

http://www.howtogeek.com/182926/ask-htg-...ook-awful/

http://lifehacker.com/disable-motion-smo...1526424116

Most of those are talking about the more noticeable extreme example of going from something like 24FPS to 120 and 240, but the effect still happens at lower rates.