Please, use FPS, like the rest of the world

In VEAI, flip the way FPS is being displayed, to… exactly that: Frames Per Second, not the rather disorienting SPF (Seconds Per Frame) format you’re using.

This format is frequently used when optimizing performance. FPS can be misleading, but when you need to know how much resources you are spending per frame it is usually measured in ms or s per frame. A setting like a toggle would still be nice :slight_smile:

1 Like

It is at first disturbing but when you get use to it I think it’s better to see exactly speed improvements wherever it’s a new model or a hardware change.
But the best would be an option to display either FPS or SPF or why not show even both.

1 Like

Toggle would be nice, yes. It’s just that, everywhere else, FPS is used; games (naturally), but also x264/x265, benchmarks, etc.

VEAI is a rendering software, not a benchmark / games.

only way to know at which speed VEAI is doing a rendering is to use SPF.
FPS is used for other purpose, like calculating how much time the whole process will need, but not to calculate how much one frame goes.

by 0.25 s/f, you know that your setting is going faster with X card than 1.25 s/f with Y card.

so yes, both would be great, but Second per frame is here more important.

i give you an example : if i get a 3 second per frame, i know exactly that i will not process the video and will hit stop.

the two indicator are not used for the same thing.


by 0.25 s/f, you know that your setting is going faster with X card than 1.25 s/f with Y card.

Conversely, at 6 fps you know your setting is going faster with X card than 4 fps with Y card. :slight_smile:

i give you an example : if i get a 3 second per frame, i know exactly that i will not process the video and will hit stop.

I give you an example: if i get 0.3 fps, I know exactly that i will not process the video and will hit stop.

You haven’t really convinced me why s/f is better for VEAI, esecially since calculating how much time the whole process will need, is, at the end of the day, really all you, de facto, want to know.

i don’t need to convince you. as said both feature are ok, but if it’s the spf who is used since the beginning of the software it’s for a reason. Rmember that the guys behind the software are Ai expert, and studied in some of the best computer and Ai research class / school. (if you know what the actual main dev of VEAI did before working for topaz, you’ll be very impressed !).

anyway, in the end, here it’s a feature request list, to avoid some mistake done in the past.
it’s not you who will make the software to change, but the number of vote. at the end of the day, the devs look at the request list (once they fixed all the main issues and bugs) when they want to add new feature and have time for that, and will watch the number of votes, not the request. that’s how it work.
we saw in the past, feature requested by a very small number of people, letting think that it was an emergency and that it was really needed, and the dev added it… and it was a mistake and not everybody wanted and now are complaining about it, and the feature must be removed.

that’s why this list exist now ;).

1 Like

A feature request is just that: a request for a feature. My life isn’t going to be ruined by leaving it s/f. :slight_smile: And I’m sure this or that dev is quite qualified, but not really a particularly cogent argument pro not switching to FPS. But, indeed, the votes will speak for themselves, in the end.

Yes, however if you think about it you can’t get part of a frame completed, and so can’t have 0.4 fps. It just doesn’t make sense Seconds per frame works because seconds are a continuous variable unlike frames which are discrete. It works for games because you never get lower than 1fps in a game. It’s a professional program, so the correct terminology should be used, not the most popular or common just for the sake of it.

1 Like

Have you ever considered that things are popular for a reason? The way our brain processes these matters, is in terms of ‘X units per time epoch Y.’ Not the other way around. Let me give you a real-world example:

“A bike travels at ca. 20 km per hour.”

That is a legible, human statement. Now let’s do it your way:

“A bike travels at ca. 0.05 hours per km.”

See the lunacy of the latter? Nobody gets that. You need to grab a calculator (or convert in your head) to make any sense of it.

I rest my case.

I think I recall the seconds per frame thing throwing me off too and I agree a toggle in settings would be nice. I could be wrong but I’m guessing they do it this way since FPS in terms of a video frame rate is most likely to be numbers that are greater than 1 such as 15, 24, 30, 60, etc. which means each frame is displayed in a fraction of a second. Due to how long this stuff tends to take, the metric you’re referring to often refers to it taking multiple seconds just to produce a single frame of a video, so if it were displayed in frames per second, I’m assuming for most people it would generally be displayed in really small fractions that would make it a little difficult to get an idea for how fast it is moving along. As a small scale example, if it’s taking 20 seconds per frame (so every time it finishes a frame, 20 seconds have gone by) if you know your video has a total of 3 frames for example, on the spot you’ll know it will take about a minute to complete whereas if it were displayed in frames per second that would say .05 frames per second (I think) which at that point calculating for me at least gets more complicated to think about in terms of estimating how much longer it will take. Either way, I agree SPF was confusing to me at first as well, I’m just trying to make sense of why they might have done it this way. As I said before, it’s probably best to give the option in settings to toggle it as others have suggested.

this is a rendering software, not a video editor. i’m trying the 3.0 alpha, where it shows frame per second and i’m totally lost, because i’m used to rendering software. in 3D , we does this too, second per frame (or minute / hours) not the reverse. Veai is a processing software, now if i want to know how fast per picture the upscaling processing is i must do maths :frowning: lol…

Yeah I agree there’s good arguments on both sides, which is why I think it’s probably best to give the user the option to choose.

You got my vote for this but I think there should be a toggle like Ivan The Chemist suggested. The program is so slow that it literally takes seconds per frame to render, fps would be in the decimal values.