Why hasn't Frame Interpolation been integrated to VLC?

[JustSaying]

@thed0ct0r: Just... ...wow. You have the gall to insult a total guru of free software, and he presented facts, and you ignored them. Not only that, but you presented pretty much nothing helpful to this discussion. Please stop trolling. You have been warned.

I've just registered to post about how much of a bootlicker you are. I love VLC, it is great but get real and behave up to VideoLAN's name if you want to be a big name here. You'll be doing yourself and everyone else a favor in the long run. Even if the president is no better, I'm holding hopes that you still can change. You have been counseled.

[James D]

JB, I can test this patch and would be interested in testing it... it would allow me to have slightly better responses to this, having seen the effects for myself. I am willing to test any feature patches that can be sent my way, because I am in favour of making VLC customisable.

I just registered to ask exactly for some attention of VLC devs because that's all what's needed to enhance video playback of many VLC users. SVP which brings interpolation and smooth video playback managed to invent its features to VLC despite some pushback which lies in VLC code. As I understand it takes nothing but dev's will to let this go and here is explicit detail: as of now you hardcoded 2 video filters by name which are allowed to change the frame rate ("deinterlace" and "postproc").
Are you willing to test this feature as how already hundreds if not thousands users already use VLC with SVP? I am not an SVP developer BTW, I just used to test beta SVP builds but I am a user who likes when everything what we use gets better with time. And I am willing to ask SVP devs for a license key for you (free version doesn't have beta-support of VLC).
As to why this feature is useful, there is no second doubt in it using with anime movies for example. Also I believe tenth of thousands people can't watch regular movies without it, especially action video (racing, sport).

Okay, your comment extrapolates waaay too far. Never was it even implied that JB is against filter. Maybe for some artificially increasing the framerate makes for a nicer movie experience, but there are actual technical reasons why this filter isn't a top candidate for recent development. Pretty much all the other video filters either add or remove data to or from a single frame at a time.
So in this case, whole frames are being invented, based on the difference between two or more frames. As these frames are combinants of multiple data sets (necessary to artificially ease the transition between the frames), they will never be as good as real frames that could exist if the film was shot at a 60 FPS rate. Also, it significantly alters the film from its intended rate.

That is funny but as soon as SVP devs found a way to bypass that hardcoded limitation I mentioned above JB created a commit which closed this opportunity so probably it wasn't exaggeration afterall As about expediency of adding data, people clean and denoise old photos, videos and all that is interpolated based on old information which is considered bad while the result is considered good and satisfying. It just brings both detailed info (like small objects which appear on ~20 frames only) which otherwise you would miss due to big general movement on the screen and removes jerkiness.
P.S. I understand that more proper topic would be VLC player with SVP but these quotes I took from here.

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

I just registered to ask exactly for some attention of VLC devs because that's all what's needed to enhance video playback of many VLC users. SVP which brings interpolation and smooth video playback managed to invent its features to VLC despite some pushback which lies in VLC code. As I understand it takes nothing but dev's will to let this go and here is explicit detail: as of now you hardcoded 2 video filters by name which are allowed to change the frame rate ("deinterlace" and "postproc").

A video filter either can change the pictures timeline (delay, reoder, add or remove pictures), or have interactive (i.e. low) latency, but not both. For historical reasons, VLC assumes that filters need the later, or need neither. Special cases were added for deinterlace and postproc as those are the only exception within the VLC code base.

That is simply a quick-and-dirty hack to make VLC work. It predates SVP and is left because nobody volunteered to fix this architectural wart in the VLC code base (I hope that I don't need to remind anybody that VLC is run by volunteers...).

That is funny but as soon as SVP devs found a way to bypass that hardcoded limitation I mentioned above JB created a commit which closed this opportunity so probably it wasn't exaggeration afterall

There are no secrets here: the hard-coded filter list has been in the open for 6 years. I don't know when SVP found the way to work around it, but it was not hidden.

[James D]

I am not here to judge or give opinion about methods which were used in the past, I am standing on the constructive side and suggested you guys to try SVP so that you would agree that such filter deserves to be used by VLC userbase. Be that a new third name of filter to be whitelisted if that is an easiest way or else (i'm not a programmer), afterall wouldn't this be by a spirit of opened software?

P.S. SVP "found" that bypass as soon as devs began looking into it after mass requests from users to make it VLC-capable, obviously.

[Aaronofthe]

If future readers would like a more explicit example of authorial intent and why film and games aren't the same:

https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-d ... vate-ryan/

Presumably watching saving private ryan with extra frames would make the explosions smoother (because you'd be filling in the spaces between that staccatto effect the author of the article mentioned) and the rest of the film sharper. The impact of the shift between shutter speeds would be less pronounced and the violence less visceral - which negates the creative decision to shoot at different shutter speeds in the first place. And would likely make the film less impactful.

The dp of a movie shot at 60fps can take those extra frames into account - in which case great. But older movie dps didn't even have the opportunity to consider it.

I'd also point out that depth of field and motion blur are both photography artifacts synthesised in games specifically because they are useful (filmic) story telling tools.. tools born out of the limitations of their medium.

EDIT: this post is obviously a little tangential to the topic but I thought I might be able to add a little clarity to the previous discussion.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

As usual, patches are very welcome.

Also, ffmpeg has a new filter called vf_minterpolate, that could fit this.

[Legion]

VLC is my default Player. Yet those videos that have panning stutter I play on MPC because it incorporates Smooth Motion via madVR. Problem solved. For instance, I have over 150GB blu-ray rips of classic Star Trek episodes - all have slight panning stutter (noticeable when Kirk's starship moves across the screen) which is extremely annoying. This stuttering disappears completely with MPC playback without any loss of quality.

From madVR: "What Smooth Motion is not, is a frame interpolation system—it will not introduce the “soap opera effect” like you see on 120Hz+ TVs, or reduce 24p judder"

I'm mystified why VLC devs don't at least have this as an option.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

Smooth Motion is different from Frame Interpolation.

It's not in VLC because noone did the work, that's all.

[lonecanislupus]

New user with an open question: I understand the reasoning behind the 180 degree shutter, but I have always thought that we're just not used to the soap opera effect and that it's actually normal. I reasoned that 3:2 pulldown is just what we're used to and being exposed to smooth motion is unsettling. Why isn't 3:2 pulldown the reason for 24 fps feeling comfortable?

[Kai_M]

I completely agree with Bugattikid2012 and his valid points! I too would appreciate this feature existing in VLC. Are there any plans to implement it?

I also want to chime in to say that frame interpolation does not destroy the look of a movie. That is completely subjective. It is a choice for the viewer, and like others have pointed out it is no different than any other video effect or feature. Whether something is "modified" as opposed to being "added" is irrelevant. It is true that the feature doesn't exist within VLC because no one has contributed it yet, but whether it destroys the look of a movie or not is not related in any way. Very few of the points raised against Bugattikid2012 were valid arguments. There is also no question that higher framerates do in fact provide superior motion and often can help with overall picture quality. I will not insist it is fact, but I believe that the reason that most of the people who dislike frame interpolation feel that way is simply that it's different than what they're used to.

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Hobbyists do whatever they want. So there is not a whole lot of planning going into VLC. Maybe someday somebody shows up with frame interpolation support, or maybe not.

The only way to be sure that it gets done is to do it yourself or contract somebody else to do so.

[Lornadoo]

I'm no coder. I'd like to contract this task out to someone willing to do the work and make some money. Alternately, I could donate to VLC (as I have in the past), but it is no guarantee that my donations will incentivize anyone to incorporate the features that I desire.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

The problem is that a good integration will probably will cost a lot to do.

[Skull king]

Need Frame interpolation