Welcome Guest! You need to login or register to make posts.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Photos4020  
#1 Posted : Monday, January 2, 2023 3:44:24 PM(UTC)
Photos4020

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 10/4/2022(UTC)
Posts: 3

I am not sure if there is a process to receive “voice of the customer” feed back for possible development improvements, but I thought there would be no harm in asking. The green removal aspect of the SDK is pretty close to being at a benchmark level for professional use. Below is an attachment of a side by side comparison I have done using 2 different SDK,s

Gmill1.jpg

If there was a way to refine the parameters that are used for the green removal I think the SDK could in fact become a preferred method for myself and others. Here are a few examples I have of some side by side comparisons. I have made the backgrounds Facia pink to show any breakdown on the green removal in the worse possible light. Like I said if the green removal could be refined or the range expanded or contracted to a help adjust for what might not be the perfect green background then the SDK for green removal would be very polished indeed.

Gmill2.jpg

I think the Aurigma SDK is doing a much better job at not washing out the faded blue jeans as in the sample attached above. I have not done any specific timings but the Aurigma SDK feels like it is significantly quicker than the competitive SDK I am using. I am open to suggestions on what I might be able to do to wash the image with some kind of transform or background clipping before applying the green removal if anyone here has a suggestion. Right now I am considering applying a gaussian blur to the alpha mask before rendering the transparency, but I'm not sure I am approaching the task in a way that will remove the small breakdown in the green removal. Can anyone on the development team explain what steps are taking place in the GreenRemoval call? I am open to any suggestions on how I might improve my results, thank you.
Eugene Kosmin  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, January 10, 2023 2:54:04 AM(UTC)
Eugene Kosmin

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 9/19/2006(UTC)
Posts: 490

Was thanked: 30 time(s) in 30 post(s)
Hi,

Thanks for the feedback!

You can try to play with parameters. For example:

Code:
bitmap.Transforms.RemoveGreenScreen(12, 1000);
Best regards,
Eugene Kosmin
The Aurigma Development Team
Photos4020  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, January 10, 2023 3:57:52 PM(UTC)
Photos4020

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 10/4/2022(UTC)
Posts: 3

thank you very much for the pointer on there being some parameters, I had no idea. I am trying different values now. Is there any information on what each of the parameters does and what the range of their values can be? Also if the parameters are not specifically called what are the default values that are used?
Eugene Kosmin  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, January 11, 2023 1:18:22 AM(UTC)
Eugene Kosmin

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 9/19/2006(UTC)
Posts: 490

Was thanked: 30 time(s) in 30 post(s)
The defaults are (18, 1000).

Actually, the influence of the second parameters is very close to the first one, but on a different scale. I think we’ll remove the second someday. The meaning is how strong we need to reduce the level of green.
Best regards,
Eugene Kosmin
The Aurigma Development Team
Photos4020  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, January 11, 2023 2:23:45 PM(UTC)
Photos4020

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 10/4/2022(UTC)
Posts: 3

Thanks for the update.

With some trial and error I found for my images the best results seemed to be (5,3000). I tired several values and discovered the first value range is between 3 to 30 when I actually entered 1 and received an error message. The second value seems to try and eat into any of the shadows cast on the green screen as well as the edges of a clean cut. In my trial and error I went as high as 20000 and as low as 500, I'm not sure what the upper limit is yet! But for me 3000 seemed like a good trade off between the shadows and the edges of a cleaner cut.

It would be nice to have a 3rd and 4th value, 3rd for the number of pixels to feather in, and the 4th determines a threshold for the minimum transparency. This would handle shadows cast so if the transparency was say 30 (for the shadows) then this value could be clipped back to zero.
Eugene Kosmin  
#6 Posted : Monday, January 16, 2023 1:15:26 AM(UTC)
Eugene Kosmin

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 9/19/2006(UTC)
Posts: 490

Was thanked: 30 time(s) in 30 post(s)
Thanks for suggestions. I’ll add it to our bug tracker.
Best regards,
Eugene Kosmin
The Aurigma Development Team
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.