Just updated to Build 113

Greenlaw · **Posted:** Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:55 pm

I just updated to build 113 and I noticed that it now has the Kinect support. You guys are trying to tempt me aren't you? :)

But even if I got a Kinect, I guess I'll have to wait for the Recorder update too, won't I? Anyway, congratulations on starting the beta for this much anticipated feature. When Kinect testing officially starts, maybe I can find somebody at work that will loan me a Kinect for a few days.

Today I upgraded my Nvidia GTX 260 to a GTX 460. Wow! Tracking speed is better than 4 times faster now! However, I am noticing that some joints are popping occasionally where it was very stable before. I'm not sure if this is a build 113 issue or if it's because of the new graphics card. Do you guys have an opinion about this? I'll try a few tweaks in the project file tonight and see if I can get rid of the pops.

Tomorrow I'm going to do my first real six camera test. Let you know how that goes.

G.

Michael Nikonov · **Joined:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:13 pm **Posts:** 805

Greenlaw wrote:

I just updated to build 113
...
However, I am noticing that some joints are popping occasionally where it was very stable before. I'm not sure if this is a build 113 issue or if it's because of the new graphics card.

This is most likely due to build 113 changes. We are very interested in knowing more details about this issue. I would appreciate if you could send us some examples illustrating this issue, like sample animation files or just screenshots. (You can send by email or post on forum, whichever is more convenient for you).

Greenlaw wrote:

Today I upgraded my Nvidia GTX 260 to a GTX 460. Wow! Tracking speed is better than 4 times faster now!

This is partly because your new video card is much faster, partly because build 113 is significantly optimized for speed.

Greenlaw wrote:

if I got a Kinect, I guess I'll have to wait for the Recorder update too, won't I?

Recorder update will be published very shortly.

djtaylor · **Joined:** Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:37 pm **Posts:** 104

Hi Greenlaw

I have a GTX460 too, if you want to make a video of yours available to me, i'll gladly try a sample, see if it's consistent with what you see.

I'll re-track one of mine too.

Greenlaw · **Posted:** Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:08 am

Michael,

Thanks. I'll try to put something together for you tomorrow evening after I do my next shoot. I'll edit a brief comparison video and either email it or post it on my YT channel. If you like, I can send my project files tracked in 112 (with GTX 260) and 113 (with GTX 460) along with the original mocap session video. (Warning, video will be a huge .zip file I'm sure.) Just let me know how you would like it sent.

Speed optimization is fantastic by the way. My 1500 frame 'benchmark' mocap that used to take about 2 hours to track is now getting done in under 25 minutes. Amazing!

djtaylor,

Yes, let me know how it goes for you.

G.

djtaylor · **Joined:** Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:37 pm **Posts:** 104

From the one I just retracked, I didn't see any difference from before but it was quite a short section.

Greenlaw · **Posted:** Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:00 am

I just did a few quick tests in an attempt to correct the 'pops' and this may be more problematic than I first thought. Apparently the problem is mainly with the arms; build 113 tracks the arm and elbow joints with far less accuracy than 112. Also, the mistracking persists over several frames and not just 1 or 2 frames, but will pop back on track when the motion/pose changes significantly. I've posted comparison images to illustrate.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Another possible problem was that I am unable to correct the pose and make it stick. But I'm not 100% certain about this; I should test this again tomorrow because it's late and I'm tired. :p

I hope this information will help you get a new build out quickly. Let me know if you need more data. In the meantime, I'm switching back to build 112.

G.

P.S., In previous versions, was it possible to enter the frame you wanted to go to in the frame number box? I thought I could do this before but see that I can't do this in 113. That might just be wishful thinking so if it was not the case before, I would like to see this feature added in a future build. Thanks! :)

Greenlaw · **Posted:** Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:16 am

I did one last quick test with 113 tonight: I loaded the 'actual size' version of my actor and, at least for one short 'problem' section of the video, the tracking seems to be accurate again. I'll do a full test with the actual size actor (as opposed to the recommended 'slightly-taller-than-actual size' actor,) over the entire mocap session after I get some sleep.

G.

Michael Nikonov · **Joined:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:13 pm **Posts:** 805

Thank you for detailed description! We were able to reproduce the problem. We are working on a fix; in the meantime, here is a link to older version for our users:

http://www.ipisoft.com/downloads/old/iP ... .0.112.exe

Greenlaw · **Posted:** Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:45 am

Hi Michael,

I had started a track before I went to bed, and I just now looked at the results. This time the project used an actual size version of the actor instead of the recommended slightly taller version. Tracking results are significantly better now...no popping at all, and initial jitter seems to be reduced too.

My opinion: popping may have been caused by over-compression/extension of the rig due to scaling. I think the new rule is to not scale your actor taller unless you have a tracking problem. Or if you do scale up, do it to a lesser degree than done in previous builds.

Unless I run into any problems later today, I'll stick with build 113. But I'll keep 112 around just in case. :)

I hope this info is helpful. Will post again after the shoot.

G.

Greenlaw · **Posted:** Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:33 am

Michael,

I examined the new tracking results with Build 113 a little more closely. With the actual size actor, the results are definitely better than what I saw last night using the taller actor, but there are definitely a few pops in that were not present in the tracking results from Build 112. The pops are in the same areas as in the image above (mainly arms and elbows.) They are not as severe now but clearly present. (It might be useful to know that the taller actor helped highlight the problem areas.)

Switching back to 112 now.

Greenlaw

Just updated to Build 113

Who is online