Chainik wrote:

> If the RIFE v2 models use fewer GPU resources and produce better visual quality than the v1 models

because they don't

Wait, what?! I always assumed v2 was strictly better than v1. Was I completely wrong?

The v2 models cause stutter for me. I get reduced GPU usage, however there is stutter in the playback without any dropped frames. When I switch back to the v1 models (e.g. 4.25_lite), the stutter goes away.

I've got a 4080 doing 4k from 23.976 fps to 48 Hz.

AutumQueen92 wrote:

Anyone using 48fps or 72fps videos on a 120hz monitor? It seems to be smooth at times, and 120fps does not seem to have a big difference in comparison

If we're talking 24fps videos interpolated to 48 or 72, then yes, although mine is a 165Hz monitor. But x4 (96fps) is a noticeable step up from x3 (72fps) to my eye. More then that I can also notice but it's not as critical as getting to that x4.

One thing to note is that SVP is only half of the equation. The other half is to draw those frames in sync with your monitor, otherwise even 160fps will remain jittery.

Try 120hz if you can.  It uses a little more GPU resources with SVP but it is divisible by 48 and the added smoothness is worth it.

Anyone using 48fps or 72fps videos on a 120hz monitor? It seems to be smooth at times, and 120fps does not seem to have a big difference in comparison

If we're talking 24fps videos interpolated to 48 or 72, then yes, although mine is a 165Hz monitor. But x4 (96fps) is a noticeable step up from x3 (72fps) to my eye. More then that I can also notice but it's not as critical as getting to that x4.

One thing to note is that SVP is only half of the equation. The other half is to draw those frames in sync with your monitor, otherwise even 160fps will remain jittery.

SVP Shader: Simple, Complicated. I'm still using "Standard".
Search Radius: Small <-- This was my default. Now using Average.
Decrease Step Grid <-- Global refinement was my default. Now disabled.
smooth.mask.area override set higher than default.

So unless you see ghosting and it annoys you (like it does me), then it's just another marginal gain. The basic settings work well enough and it's probably not worth the effort.

API is the same, the problem is in different packaging/installation
from what I tried, "portable" R74 doesn't like portable Python 3.12
but maybe I'm just stupid

> everyone praised their quality

Actually, Sorry I didn't mean 'quality,' I meant performance. Most people think updating isn't necessary until you guys make it official. Only then does it become 'essential' and everyone starts promoting it.

> everyone praised their quality

Drakko01 wrote:

Chainik wrote:

at least it isn't a simple drop-in replacement

Why not? i am testing R75RC1 right now.

Because there are apparently breaking changes to the API with R74 (this needs to be verified). Maybe SVP isn't affected but there doesn't seem to be any real major advantages to upgrading either.

I’m aware of the standard installation process may brake things , my approach is to simply swap the core files for R74 or R75rc1 to test them immediately. It’s a bit ironic: when new versions like R70 through R73 were first discussed, the consensus was that there were no 'major advantages.' However, as soon as they were officially released by the SVP team, everyone praised their quality. I'd rather validate the improvements firsthand than wait for the official release

Chainik wrote:

Ironclad wrote:

Does Vapoursynth R74 break compatibility?

at least it isn't a simple drop-in replacement

Why not? i am testing R75RC1 right now.

Because there are apparently breaking changes to the API with R74 (this needs to be verified). Maybe SVP isn't affected but there doesn't seem to be any real major advantages to upgrading either.

Ironclad wrote:

Does Vapoursynth R74 break compatibility?

at least it isn't a simple drop-in replacement

Why not? i am testing R75RC1 right now.

Motion Vectors Grid: 8px /* Overkill. 12px - 16px  is probably better for most systems */
Decrease grid step: Local Refinement
Artifacts Masking: Personal preference.

But for those with strong Nvidia GPUs, these next "two" overrides do increase smoothness on a very large screen. But they can also overwhelm SVP and cost at least an extra 20 (GPU) Watts for what are effectively only marginal gains.
---------------------------------
    levels.pel                                    = 4;  /* Overkill */
    analyse.refine[0].search.satd    = true;  /* Definitely Overkill But works well without the previous additional overrides */
---------------------------------

With the right Artifacts Masking (I still use mask overrides), any of the settings above will hopefully get you the same RIFE smooth motion and motion clarity without the nasty RIFE artifacts.

dawkinscm wrote:

The second issue might not be an issue in that SVP reports 1920x1080 for even though the file itself is actually 3840x2160.

why it tells "+3D SBS"? is it really 3d sbs? then why 3840*2160? or the file name contains "sbs" tag? or you turned this manually, then why?

Yes. I meant 3840x1080 (not sure why I typed 2160). So SVP is only telling me about half of the frame?

The second issue might not be an issue in that SVP reports 1920x1080 for even though the file itself is actually 3840x2160.

why it tells "+3D SBS"? is it really 3d sbs? then why 3840*2160? or the file name contains "sbs" tag? or you turned this manually, then why?