-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Filtering function oddities in motiongram() #274
Comments
I tested the function on both Windows and Linux OS but it seems to work properly. Did you use the last version of musicalgestures (1.2.6)? Note that the default non-thresholded motiongram using |
Yes, I get some effect, but perhaps less than I had expected. The filter goes from 0 to 1 right? So I would expect that when you filter at 0.0 you would get a lot of noise, while at 0.9 very little signal? |
Yes from 0 to 1, the problem is related to the way FFmpeg filters each motion frame. I suspect that because there is not a lot of color possibility in FFmpeg, the threshold cannot be very precise. However, if you want I can add the possibility to use traditional filtering but it will take more time to process. Here are some examples with a |
I test this yesterday, and see that the visual differences are quite large between the old and new function. See motiongrams of the same video made with the default settings of the old and new. It would be good to investigate a little more what we can do to improve the filtering of the motiongrams with the new function. The speed benefit is huge, so it would be very nice to work in FFmpeg. Perhaps a midterm solution could be to add the option of using both? |
I just tried the various filtering functions, threshold and type, but they don't seem to work. See here for a threshold of 0.0:
Is this related to the FFmpeg change?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: