Performance Issues of MP4 shows

[Fried]

Hi Everyone

I am done with my slide shows for the year and made use of the pan/zoom as well as the MP4 output option for my Mac users.

The following results are based on testing on multiple PC and Mac systems running various versions of OS.

In the EXE version of shows the pan/zoom was not smooth at times but if I cut back on the amount of pan or zoom and really dropped back on the quality of the JPEG the usual EXE smoothness was achieved. You can get a good example of this starting at 0:030 in either version of the slide shows.

The MP4 versions are disappointing. It seems no matter what pan/zoom settings or options I select in the MP4 creation menu, the pan/zooms are jerky. Furthermore, the latest show is exhibiting an odd artifact: after a high-speed rotation at 6:58, the images increasingly are showing a "paint" effect in their rendering not present in the EXE version and certainly not present in the original images. This effect is seen in the MP4 on both PC and Mac and in all three resolutions of the MP4 available in the creation menu.

The shows are available on these links:

EXE Version: http://www.friedbits.com/PhotoBits/Sailing/Snipe/2009Worlds/Slideshow/2009SnipeWorlds_v2_EXE.zip

MP4 Version: http://www.friedbits.com/PhotoBits/Sailing/Snipe/2009Worlds/Slideshow/2009SnipeWorlds_v2_MP4.zip

At this point I don't know what else to try or do. I'm not entirely happy with the pan/zoom performance but I can keep trying to work around it. The weird rendering effect in the MP4 makes it unusable and my Mac users are very vociferous.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Fried,

I just watched your executable show and have some suggestions which may help.

First, the show was excellent and the pans, zooms and the one rotate were butter smooth on my system. From your description I can assume that there are some things which may be a bit confusing.

First, you mentioned jpg "quality" and this concerns me. Usually when I hear "quality" and the word jpg it means degree of "compression." Whether you save your jpg at Photoshop 12 or Photoshop 3, the file will expand to its full eight bit size in memory so there is absolutely zero gain by using high jpg compression. The way to increase performance is to decrease jpg dimensions, not increase compression. So if you use higher compression, there will be only loss, not gain.

In case you haven't already done so, use a product like Irfanview and resample your originals to a new folder so you don't affect the originals. Resample them to the precise dimensions you are using such as 1920x1080 pixels. Leave the compression at the best quality setting.

Second, for your images with zooms and pans, click on the "anti shimmering" (mipmapping) in Objects and Animations Property Tab. This will minimize or eliminate the shimmer or flicker on detail objects especially during zooms.

Third, use the beta 5.7 to output native MacIntosh executable code for the majority of your MacIntosh users. This works for all users who have Intel based MacIntosh (any sold in last three years) with OS 10.4 or better operating systems.

MP4 h.264 simply can't handle pans smoothly and certainly not fast rotates. It's not the systems, it's simply not that great regardless of what you might hear. This has been proven with countless different programs which output h.264 MP4 files. It works well for video taken with video cameras, but not for conversions to video via slideshow programs. Straight images without animation work well, but animation is always jerky regardless of the software used or the size of the output. It's just not there yet.

If anyone is having problems with your executable being not smooth enough on the pans or zooms, it's a hardware limitation, not the show itself. The way to get around this is to decrease the pixel dimensions. Even when you do this, those with graphic's challenged video cards may not get smooth pans or fast rotates. The PTE output is hardware rendered using the graphics power of the GPU in the video card. Some of the animation will go as high and higher than 60 frames per second and a fairly decent video card is absolutely necessary to play this back smoothly, especially when you are outputting at 1920x1080 pixels.

I have a variety of systems to test with. Any video card which scores around 440 or better on the tests as seen in the link below, will render the show smoothly. Any of the really poor video cards typically found in older laptops will not.

To find out which video card your users have, ask them to go to the "Start" "Run" and type in "dxdiag." This will give the manufacturer of the video card and the amount of dedicated video RAM.

Next go to this link and scroll down and find the "white" table (the fourth of four tables). Type in the video card description in the "search" field and read the number in the G3D rating column. If it is less than about 440 then the video card "probably" isn't up to snuff.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/

Link above to videocard test site:

NOTE:

If you use 5.7 beta 14 to output to native MacIntosh format (suggest doing it as zip), then do not save the original PTE file under 5.7. If you "do" want to save the file, use an alternative file name. Files saved under 5.7 can't be opened with earlier versions of PTE.

Best regards,

Lin

[Fried]

Great feedback as usual Lin! Many thanks.

1. Compression/resolution confusion. AH HA. Yes, I've been confusing this. I am processing my NEF-->PSD-->JPEG in Bridge+Photoshop CS4. The JPEG I've been creating is 1920x1080 @ 100 Quality for the "day of presentation" show. The 1920x1080 @ 100 works pretty well on my laptop and my Optoma supports 1920x1080, which is awesome. I then have been making a second version in which I reduce the quality to 60 to keep the size down for downloading; the resolution is still 1920x1080 though so the throughput requirement really hasn't changed. Perhaps I should expand my workflow and add making a lower resolution 1080x720 version so users get a smoother experience. That would also make the downloads smaller.

2. I've not been clicking on the "anti shimmering" setting. I'll start doing so.

3. The Mac version... I will try your suggestion later this week.

4. I'll give up on the MP4 versions for now. The thing the really drew me to P2E was being able to precisely control the synch between the music and the slides, etc. I'll not release anything that compromises the quality of that.

I was making my shows 800x600 until this year. With my new laptop and projector, I may been a bit overly enthusiastic and made too big of a leap to 1920x1080 for the hardware used by the majority of my users since they're all over the world and run anything from the latest and greatest to the worst of the worst.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Fried,

I neglected to put the link to the videocard test site above, but have since edited and added it. You can pass this link to your users and they can find out how their video cards stack up against better ones. I have what was "once" a top-of-the-line nVidia 8800 GT card which now falls less than half way among the really powerful new cards.

For desktop systems running Windows and having a modern bus such as a PCI Express, I would recommend a minimum of an nVidia GeForce 8600 GT card. They have plenty of power to run most graphic intensive PTE shows and don't cost an arm and a leg. They have a rating of 402 which is a tad beneath my suggestion above, but since I have one to test I can assure anyone that they will do all but the most demanding of PTE shows.

With the new features coming out in the next release such as 3D Transform, it will be possible to exceed even what they can do if you get too carried away. I just created a test show which even gives my 8800GT all it can handle. Hopefully, as systems are replaced with Vista and Windows 7 capable machines, the problems of video cards lacking sufficient power will become a moot issue.

Best regards,

Lin

[Fried]

This is my laptop:

Sager NP9262 - Gaming Laptop - $3,067.00

17" WUXGA (1920x1200) Glossy Widescreen

nVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTX 1GB

Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q9650 3.0GHz Processor w/12M L2 Cache - 1333MHz FSB

Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound

4GB (2 SODIMMS) DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (64bit Vista Required)

320GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive (16MB Cache Buffer)

320GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive (16MB Cache Buffer)

RAID Disabled

Combo 8x8x6x4x Dual Layer DVD +/-R/RW 5x DVD-RAM 24x CD-R/RW Drive w/Softwares

7-in-1 Memory Card Reader (All versions of MS + SD/MMC)

Built-in Intel® PRO/Wireless 5300 802.11a/g/n

Built-in Bluetooth Wireless

Smart Li-ion Battery (12 Cell)

[Lin Evans]

Hi Fried,

According to the table the GeForce 9800M GTX has a rating of 722 which makes it very good for a laptop. My desktop card, an nVidia GeForce 8800 GT has a rating of 966. It requires a minimum of a 450 watt power supply just to supply power for the video card!

Among the top rated cards, the GeForce GTX 285 has a rating of 2025. The very top card right now, an overclocked model of the GeForce GTX 295 has not yet been rated in the chart, but some systems use twin GTX 295's which are liquid cooled and have incredible throughput.

Technology moves so fast that it's difficult to keep up!

The important thing to realize is that you can easily create smooth running shows with your laptop which simply won't function that way with the vast majority of older systems so it's always best to try to hang on to a less powerful model just to test with and be sure that you don't overdo your graphics for older systems when you widely distribute your shows.

Best regards,

Lin