180 equirectangular greenscreen videos?

metichemsi

Lenovo you know, i recently found out about that app on one of these forums actually. I ended up purchasing it and I actually already like more than DeoVR. The quality of the video really is much better and the amount of customization is insane and yes, I have been able to fine tune and tweak the r5c footage a little better on that app. I also noticed that playback stability is better on that app. I get consistent and locked 90fps playback on my pimax headset, deovr struggles to maintain 90fps, it's always hovering between 87-90 and sometimes even in the low 80's specially when skipping videos.

metichemsi

Sandi_SLR Nice, please make sure to also recreate exporting the fisheye footage from mistika with the same resolution and aspect ratio as the CRM files, its not natively a 2:1 aspect ratio. I simply drop the CRM footage on premiere and export the fisheye footage in its native resolution and aspect ratio and your r5c camera profile on DeoVR shows great scaling on that footage. If you could replicate that process on mistika you should get similar results. Maybe dont do the usual VR workflow on mistika, simply drop in the footage, color grade, export in its original res and aspect ratio and try that also.

rerun119

metichemsi If I understand what all is being said and EVERY studio is shooting 8K wrong. And you can teach every studio how to fix and shoot all the 8K correctly. Then you need an AVN award. Because this has been a curse of vr porn for the last year. It has ruined these companies that bought that camera so now they just keep making scenes with big people month after month.

Sandi_SLR

metichemsi It is really hard to follow what you mean, why would you want to leave it original aspect ratio? For correct projection in app, you have to have it 2:1.
As I said, there is no issue preparing same perceived scale in Mistika on our 190fisheaye as Canon utility does it on 180equi on the example I had to check so far, I am waiting for our videoeditor to create several samples from Canon and we will redo it in Mistika and compare scale.

Aerowen

Sandi_SLR Because many VR scenes are "too big" in scaling for me I figured I'd check these out, very interested to see what comes from this...

With the four files I notice little (if any) difference in scale, with overall scale too big for all clips like you said.

But from what I understand I think metichemsi specifically meant to try exporting in the native AR because 8000/4000 is 2:1 but 8192/4320 is 1.896:1 (or 256:135).
Although I think the end resolution shouldn't matter as long as the original AR is used to create the actual fisheye projection, are we sure that whatever tool you use keeps that original AR for this and doesn't change/stretch it to the 2:1 end result?

👇️

metichemsi please make sure to also recreate exporting the fisheye footage from mistika with the same resolution and aspect ratio as the CRM files, its not natively a 2:1 aspect ratio. I simply drop the CRM footage on premiere and export the fisheye footage in its native resolution and aspect ratio and your r5c camera profile on DeoVR shows great scaling on that footage.

metichemsi I'd be very interested to compare a clip in 256:135 and 2:1 AR as well if you have those, just to see if difference in exporting like that has a noticeable effect.

metichemsi

rerun119 I highly doubt they are shooting wrong, these guys are pros, but I have owned a k2 pro and now own the canon system and this is how i noticed and get correct scaling out of the canon camera compared to what everyone else is complaining about, so maybe it might help somebody. I just dont think SLR is personally relying on a fix for the canon system since they seem to already be invested on a new custom 10k camera solution, which quite frankly sounds badass and I cant wait to see samples of.

metichemsi

rerun119 you know what else strikes me super odd about all of this, is that the whole scaling issue with the canon camera is being blamed on it's IPD which is total BS to a certain point. If the IPD alone was the issue then how come footage from other consumer cameras with a much smaller IPD dont look even worse??? Think of the EVO and the VUZE cameras, those IPD distances are probably almost half of the canon system and do things looks almost twice as big? I dont think so, ive seen plenty of Vuze footage, some old scenes from other studios on this site where even shot on that, I also owned the EVO and scaling was never an issue. There is a balance between IPD, distance to camera, lens FOV and FOV rendered. I'm taking a wild guess here but I think the canon marketing is probably rounding up to 190 FOV for their lens, its probably a little lower than that, so when their software converts to 180 its actually zooming in a little more than it should, which is why the scaling is slightly larger than it should. They should be able to fix this with Mistika and not crop in as tight as the canon tool does, I just dont have the tools to precisely measure and prove this but they should. Again, it's just my guess but I'm pretty sure the canon lens is not actually a full 190 lens.

metichemsi

Sandi_SLR It's as simple as it sounds and you wont see it until you do it. Trust me, it takes absolutely no time at all, you just drop in the raw CRM footage, color grade it, and export it at it's original resolution and aspect ratio, just like I outlined on my previous posts. I also gave you a sample file where I did that for you already, didnt you look at it? You should be able to play that just fine on DeoVR with the canon profile and see the difference in scaling. Has anyone bothered to do this?

Sandi_SLR

metichemsi Hey, we actually never used rf52 projection for releases (it turned out unusable), we prepare footage for fisheye190 projection, so you have to prepare it like you would for fisheye180:

stereo correction
export fisheye circles next to each other in 2:1 aspect ratio

I will prepare you a sample from your file you sent, fisheye190 with same scale, need to find time, probably on Monday.

Sandi_SLR

metichemsi Sent you the file if you care to check, let me know how is the scale, thanks.

Aerowen

Sandi_SLR The fisheyes itself, on canon raw, are in 1:1 ratio, they are just saved on canvas of 8192x4320.

Ah so I assume the actual image AR does not get changed then, but it doesn't crop either? Because I would expect that to effectively zoom in somewhat...
I'm just going off what metichemsi was saying there's a difference and suspects the lens is not actually a full 190. It's possible if that's the case when converting it to 180 it zooms in more than it should. But I'll leave it to him to explain that, I have no actual experience with the cameras or the software. Just saying it sounds plausible.

Sandi_SLR

Hey!

Here is an open invite for everyone to check, this samples are prepared with Canon Utility and then same thing with our workflow in Mistika.

Personally I hardly notice any difference in scale between them, while overall scale seems big for both of them.
So my conclusion is: there is no magic we can do here to somehow fix lower IPD, thou I am still open for debate and samples.

I will add, that we found some deviation from our workflow in some videos and we are adding steps to avoid sub optimal quality going forward.

metichemsi

Sandi_SLR all the fisheye footage is in a 2:1 aspect ratio. There is no sample file of the footage left in its original resolution and aspect ratio. Can you provide another fisheye sample with the original resolution and aspect ratio? That is the format which has correct scaling. its actually 256:135 aspect ratio or 8192x4320 resolution, not 8000x4000

Thanks

doublevr

Sandi_SLR no sign of improvement there 😞

Sandi_SLR

Hunky-Dory I left everything without color correction so there wont be any bias based on image colors. Just increase the contrast if its so hard to watch washed out videos.

Sandi_SLR

metichemsi I provided the files as they are streamed from our platform, please stop mentioning canon original aspect ratio, there are no videos in that layout on slr.
Please play the files in the app and compare scale of actress between them.
Do you see any difference?

metichemsi

Sandi_SLR there is no difference because you are not taking into account the original resolution and aspect ratio. I am done trying to explain this to you, you are very stubborn. I provided you samples of raw footage that you can simply view in any of your fisheye profiles, original resolution and aspect ratio. Scaling is perfectly fine. If you are going to keep ignoring that then I am finished trying to explain this to you.

Sandi_SLR

Aerowen half of the samples are made with Canon Utility and as you noticed there is no difference in perceived scale, so why are we still talking about ratio, if you are suggesting aspect ratio matters, is the Utility working wrong too?
The fisheyes itself, on canon raw, are in 1:1 ratio, they are just saved on canvas of 8192x4320.

rerun119

Aerowen Can @metichemsi put a comparison video up here that we can look at the difference that he is talking about

metichemsi

Aerowen they refuse to even acknowledge the footage in that aspect ratio, they are very stubborn, I even provided them a sample video clip comparing both versions but it sounds like they refuse to even watch them. I'm done trying to explain this to them haha

doublevr

Sandi_SLR why don't we post some fish eye samples si the guys can do whatever they want with these

metichemsi

Aerowen that is exactly what I was suggesting. I have 2 clips I shared with their team. One fisheye at it's native resolution and aspect ratio, you can play it with a default fisheye profile and the scaling is correct. The second clip is the one generated by canons VR utility into equirectangular format, it's clearly zooming in past 180, which is why i am under the impression the lens is not actually a full 190 lens. Also, the VR utility software, from what I read somewhere, was not actually developed by canon, but instead a third party company. I'm actually going to make my own measuring chart this weekend, if I have time, to try and measure the actual FOV of this damn lens, even if I have to draw out the damn lines on a piece of cardboard haha I will compare the measurement of the native fisheye footage vs. what the canon utility spits out.

Sandi_SLR

rerun119 He shared a file with me that he recorded, at home, with canon, I created the same sample for him as I posted up there with fisheye190, he is free to share my sample if you guys want another comparison.

metichemsi

rerun119 Sure, these are two of the sample clips I made for them.

The first file is what the canon VR utility spits out in equirectangular format, scaling is off.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U3nNXh90RgyBTdU40SuAMrp_t5UcP_BV/view?usp=sharing

Second file is the fisheye footage kept in its original resolution and aspect ratio, not a 2:1 aspect ratio, which they refuse to even watch. Let me know what you think, to me the difference is clear.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0Lnu4Ti8xklZZsB7AC1itX6Iae1stN3/view?usp=sharing

Ignore the lack of proper color grading, exposure, and any other flaws haha this was a quick test to simply look at scaling

Vrsumo2017

I'm looking back at the school class room scene with Blake and sky in pico 4, compared to the quest 2 in the pico 4 it looks fine, I put it in pt and it matched up pretty good with my background 🤔, maybe just depends what headset your using, maybe that's why @LordCrash was OK with the scale, cuz I think has bigger fov with the headset he uses...

Ima look at sum more of those "big scaled scenes"

But right of bat I didn't get that feeling like "whoa why it looks so big" using the pico4 🤷‍♂️

« Previous Page Next Page »