Increased resolution export

Foone · 12-14-2015, 06:17 AM

(Hopefully this'll be more, later, but right now it's just weirdness)

I'm working on a new method of exporting movies to YouTube and the like, where I'm using 3dmm's built-in renderer but I'm modifying how it outputs images. Right now this can't properly capture:

sounds
textboxes
scene transitions

but it has promise to give much higher resolution movies after export. I have the very basics working but I'm getting some very confusing results:

The original scene:

The exported version (click for fullsize)

See? Nicely high-resolution, but... some objects are missing. This is very strange, I'm not doing my own custom renderer, just calling the built-in one. I don't see any reason why those specific objects would be missing, either. It's very odd.

Foone · 12-14-2015, 06:34 AM

Rendering to the default buffer seems to fix that. Weird.
There's still some weird color blurring on the edges because of how I'm composing two images (and not very well), but here's the first "high-res" (1632x918) export of a 3dmm scene.

Youtube considers that 720P. I tried doing 2176x1224 but that's too high-res for BRender, apparently.

Liam Brocklehurst · 12-14-2015, 07:23 AM

It's pretty surreal seeing 3dmm in such a high-resolution :P Looks great!

Air Rick · 12-14-2015, 06:55 PM

that's so cool, I love seeing all these 3dmm-program related improvements that the Socrates team could never have even dreamed of.

Compcat · 12-15-2015, 01:38 PM

Yay, fantastic! If there's one single 3dmm change I could ask for it would be higher resolution.

Gorosaurus · 12-18-2015, 05:38 PM

This is very, very exciting. It could prove incredibly important to saving 3dmm movies for future audiences (I guess.. our kids?)

Broken Pencil · 12-19-2015, 12:51 AM

This is really cool. Could you post some more images?

Slime · 12-19-2015, 01:37 AM

this is cool

haha, am i imagining things or did you replace your avatar with a lower-res version of the cube?

edit: hmm probably imagining things

Foone · 12-20-2015, 01:05 AM

Here's one of the fullsize frames (click to view)

You can see the limitations of this technique: it still has the texture artifacts of 3dmm, just bigger now.

And if you look at where the white blocks meet the sky (or around the sun) you can see some blurriness. This should be totally fixable, just my first version of the processing script doesn't handle them 100% correctly. I'd show how this is put together but apparently I deleted those files and I can't regenerate them until next month (yay, christmas vacations)

Foone · 12-20-2015, 09:39 PM

Splitting out how this works is revealing some mistakes that'll soon be fixed.

So we first generate just the background (at standard 544x306 res) and upscale it:

(You'll notice this is not, in fact, just the background. that's a bug)

Then we generate the foreground natively at 1632x918:

Convert it to a mask, using the special 253 color (FF00FF) as transparent:

Then overlay the foreground onto the background using the mask for transparency:

I need to try generating the foreground at 2048x1152 (or possibly 2047x1151). That'd be the maximum the brender engine can do, but since it's a messy 3.8x upscale the backgrounds might look terrible. Then again, that'd only affect the movies with backgrounds, obviously.

Foone · 12-20-2015, 10:03 PM

So it seems what 3dmm is doing is doing a pre-render of the background + any objects that never move during the scene, and the way I'm composing my frames separately is breaking that. Very interesting.

See, it does a special render containing solely the objects that don't move, so it can then compose all the rest of the frames on top of that. That's a smart optimization, for 1995.

And this is only done if you hit Play. If you manually step through the frames, it doesn't do this. I guess I can't rely on the play functionality to autoexport all the frames, then.

Broken Pencil · 12-20-2015, 10:11 PM

So what you're saying is that It'd look correct if the movie only used custom backgrounds?

Foone · 12-20-2015, 10:16 PM

Assuming every single object moved in the scene, yes.

Broken Pencil · 12-20-2015, 10:18 PM

Awesome. Do you mind posting the script?

Foone · 12-21-2015, 12:01 AM

Not yet. It's a mess of a binary patch and a DLL and some python and some batch scripts and ffmpeg. I'll release it once it's in a little more stable state.

Pogo · 01-03-2016, 07:12 PM

Daft as it sounds, would it help to add an extra frame where you just cut every single object, then cut that frame back out in post?

French Fry · 01-03-2016, 07:22 PM

Oh shit

Justin Wawrzonek · 01-06-2016, 05:09 PM

Wow...this is pretty cool. If this ends up working I may be able to stomach rewatching some of my old movies.

12-14-2015, 06:17 AM	#1
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631	Increased resolution export (Hopefully this'll be more, later, but right now it's just weirdness) I'm working on a new method of exporting movies to YouTube and the like, where I'm using 3dmm's built-in renderer but I'm modifying how it outputs images. Right now this can't properly capture: sounds textboxes scene transitions but it has promise to give much higher resolution movies after export. I have the very basics working but I'm getting some very confusing results: The original scene: The exported version (click for fullsize) See? Nicely high-resolution, but... some objects are missing. This is very strange, I'm not doing my own custom renderer, just calling the built-in one. I don't see any reason why those specific objects would be missing, either. It's very odd.
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631

12-14-2015, 06:34 AM	#2
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631	Rendering to the default buffer seems to fix that. Weird. There's still some weird color blurring on the edges because of how I'm composing two images (and not very well), but here's the first "high-res" (1632x918) export of a 3dmm scene. Youtube considers that 720P. I tried doing 2176x1224 but that's too high-res for BRender, apparently.
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631

12-14-2015, 06:55 PM	#4
Air Rick Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,733	that's so cool, I love seeing all these 3dmm-program related improvements that the Socrates team could never have even dreamed of.
Air Rick Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,733

12-15-2015, 01:38 PM	#5
Compcat Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8,810	Yay, fantastic! If there's one single 3dmm change I could ask for it would be higher resolution.
Compcat Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8,810

12-19-2015, 01:37 AM	#8
Slime Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 24,891	this is cool haha, am i imagining things or did you replace your avatar with a lower-res version of the cube? edit: hmm probably imagining things
Slime Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 24,891

12-14-2015, 07:23 AM	#3
Liam Brocklehurst Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,143	It's pretty surreal seeing 3dmm in such a high-resolution :P Looks great!

12-18-2015, 05:38 PM	#6
Gorosaurus Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 16,146	This is very, very exciting. It could prove incredibly important to saving 3dmm movies for future audiences (I guess.. our kids?)

12-19-2015, 12:51 AM	#7
Broken Pencil Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,341	This is really cool. Could you post some more images?

12-20-2015, 01:05 AM	#9
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631	Here's one of the fullsize frames (click to view) You can see the limitations of this technique: it still has the texture artifacts of 3dmm, just bigger now. And if you look at where the white blocks meet the sky (or around the sun) you can see some blurriness. This should be totally fixable, just my first version of the processing script doesn't handle them 100% correctly. I'd show how this is put together but apparently I deleted those files and I can't regenerate them until next month (yay, christmas vacations)
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631

12-20-2015, 09:39 PM	#10
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631	Splitting out how this works is revealing some mistakes that'll soon be fixed. So we first generate just the background (at standard 544x306 res) and upscale it: (You'll notice this is not, in fact, just the background. that's a bug) Then we generate the foreground natively at 1632x918: Convert it to a mask, using the special 253 color (FF00FF) as transparent: Then overlay the foreground onto the background using the mask for transparency: I need to try generating the foreground at 2048x1152 (or possibly 2047x1151). That'd be the maximum the brender engine can do, but since it's a messy 3.8x upscale the backgrounds might look terrible. Then again, that'd only affect the movies with backgrounds, obviously.
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631

12-20-2015, 10:03 PM	#11
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631	So it seems what 3dmm is doing is doing a pre-render of the background + any objects that never move during the scene, and the way I'm composing my frames separately is breaking that. Very interesting. See, it does a special render containing solely the objects that don't move, so it can then compose all the rest of the frames on top of that. That's a smart optimization, for 1995. And this is only done if you hit Play. If you manually step through the frames, it doesn't do this. I guess I can't rely on the play functionality to autoexport all the frames, then.
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631

12-20-2015, 10:11 PM	#12
Broken Pencil Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,341	So what you're saying is that It'd look correct if the movie only used custom backgrounds?

12-20-2015, 10:16 PM	#13
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631	Assuming every single object moved in the scene, yes.
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631

12-20-2015, 10:18 PM	#14
Broken Pencil Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,341	Awesome. Do you mind posting the script?

12-21-2015, 12:01 AM	#15
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631	Not yet. It's a mess of a binary patch and a DLL and some python and some batch scripts and ffmpeg. I'll release it once it's in a little more stable state.
Foone Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 631

01-03-2016, 07:22 PM	#17
French Fry Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,962	Oh shit

01-03-2016, 07:12 PM	#16
Pogo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,228	Daft as it sounds, would it help to add an extra frame where you just cut every single object, then cut that frame back out in post?
Pogo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,228

01-06-2016, 05:09 PM	#18
Justin Wawrzonek Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,373	Wow...this is pretty cool. If this ends up working I may be able to stomach rewatching some of my old movies.