Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[Proposal] Video/BG section update

posted
Total Posts
20
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,802 posts
Joined August 2013
Topic Starter
pishifat
hi

this will replace the "Video" section of the current ranking criteria. it's basically the content you already know with irrelevant stuff removed, incorrect stuff adjusted, and wording modernized. background-related stuff is also moved from the skinning section to here

see the proposal here: https://gist.github.com/pishifat/794b5922604e924329c056645a103011

this will be up for discussion for about 1 week, then it'll be revised if necessary
iYiyo
1,107 posts
Joined January 2014
iYiyo

videobg.md wrote:

A beatmap set may not contain multiple background video files. Multiple videos within a single beatmap set is not supported.


audio.md wrote:

A mapset may only contain one song file used by all difficulties. Multiple song files within a single beatmap set is unsupported by osu! and results in unexpected behaviour with preview times, metadata, etc.


A bit picky, but keeping the wording consistent looks more professional imo.
ZekeyHache
3,316 posts
Joined October 2009
ZekeyHache
maybe add "A background image must weight less than 1mb" ?

It triggers me because bgs don't really have to get to weight that much (even with the current maximum resolution) and I've seen cases where the bg is even larger than the mp3 lol
it makes a big difference in sets with many bgs
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet

ezek wrote:

maybe add "A background image must weight less than 1mb" ?

It triggers me because bgs don't really have to get to weight that much (even with the current maximum resolution) and I've seen cases where the bg is even larger than the mp3 lol
it makes a big difference in sets with many bgs
no reason to forcibly limit filesizes, if you see a map with a needlessly big bg file then feel free to provide an alternative during the modding process
ZekeyHache
3,316 posts
Joined October 2009
ZekeyHache

UndeadCapulet wrote:

no reason to forcibly limit filesizes, if you see a map with a needlessly big bg file then feel free to provide an alternative during the modding process
1mb for a bg image is needlessly big, that's why I'm making my suggestion

if you still disagree, then we should remove the 192kbps limit on mp3s and just provide an alternative during the modding process in case we see one needlessly big or with too much bitrate, I guess 🤔
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet
the 192kbps limit is set by peppy, not us
ZekeyHache
3,316 posts
Joined October 2009
ZekeyHache
I wasn't serious about it yknow...

A lot of space could be saved if more BNs and mappers start looking at the size of their background images, and what would be better than setting a limit in size? or at least adding a guideline zzz
Halfslashed
Global Moderator
425 posts
Joined July 2014
Halfslashed
I don't think its a bad idea to have a guideline regarding BG size, but wording it more like it was done in the storyboarding section makes more sense than an arbitrary number. I could see something along the following working well:

Make sure the background is optimized as much as possible, within practical means.
Avoid unnecessary transparency around backgrounds.
Use whichever image file format takes up the least file size whilst maintaining reasonable quality. .png format often takes up more file size for larger images due to the lossless compression method, unlike .jpeg.
UndeadCapulet
1,100 posts
Joined April 2013
UndeadCapulet
thats still a needless inclusion and it pretty much discourages using png bg's altogether even tho they're the clearly higher quality, really really disagree with such a concept, just leave it up to the mapper..
Halfslashed
Global Moderator
425 posts
Joined July 2014
Halfslashed

UndeadCapulet wrote:

thats still a needless inclusion and it pretty much discourages using png bg's altogether even tho they're the clearly higher quality, really really disagree with such a concept, just leave it up to the mapper..
Iirc the game doesn't even support the transparency that png files bring to the table, and the game also renders a lower resolution version of the provided background anyways, so the additional quality benefits are minimal at best. Basically the guideline would be a worthwhile inclusion if file size matters on the storage/bandwidth side of things, else it doesn't matter.
ZekeyHache
3,316 posts
Joined October 2009
ZekeyHache
Png images preserve all the quality if you save them from the original work, watch out because saying they have better quality can make some people convert their jpegs into pngs, which doesn't increase quality, just file size. Believe me, I've seen people doing that. It's better to keep them just for storyboards when they have to use QAT transparency.
I think png images are okay when the image uses just a few colors, they don't take much space, as you can see here (1920x1080 / 82.5kb).

Halfslashed wrote:

I don't think its a bad idea to have a guideline regarding BG size, but wording it more like it was done in the storyboarding section makes more sense than an arbitrary number.
I think using a number for a limit makes sense because at the current limit on resolution there won't be a noticeable difference if you compress something from 2mb to 800kb.

Let's look at a small test I did, because an image says more than a thousand words.

I used a picture I took a picture with a professional camera, so I didn't use an already compressed image from the internet.
I set the resolution to 1920x1080, which should be one of the most used resolutions here. I saved the image with different settings:

1. PNG (4.74mb)
2. JPEG (2.38mb) Quality 12 (max) in Photoshop.
3. JPEG (824kb) Quality 8 in Photoshop.
4. JPEG (664kb) Quality 6 in Photoshop.
You can download the images to confirm their size.

Now tell me, can you spot any difference in quality that you would notice while either playing a map or in the editor?

Most images will look very good (again, under the current resolution limit) around 600 to 900 kb, so that's why I'm suggesting setting a limit or guideline of 1.0mb maximum file size for background images.
Last edited by ZekeyHache , edited 1 time in total.
Nitrous
1,206 posts
Joined October 2015
Nitrous

ezek wrote:

Png images preserve all the quality if you save them from the original work, watch out because saying they have better quality can make some people convert their jpegs into pngs, which doesn't increase quality, just file size. Believe me, I've seen people doing that. It's better to keep them just for storyboards when they have to use QAT transparency.
I think png images are okay when the image uses just a few colors, they don't take much space, as you can see here (1920x1080 / 82.5kb).

I think using a number for a limit makes sense because at the current limit on resolution there won't be a noticeable difference if you compress something from 2mb to 800kb.

Let's look at a small test I did, because an image says more than a thousand words.

I used a picture I took a picture with a professional camera, so I didn't use an already compressed image from the internet.
I set the resolution to 1920x1080, which should be one of the most used resolutions here. I saved the image with different settings:

1. PNG (4.74mb)
2. JPEG (2.38mb) Quality 12 (max) in Photoshop.
3. JPEG (824kb) Quality 8 in Photoshop.
4. JPEG (664kb) Quality 6 in Photoshop.
You can download the images to confirm their size.

Now tell me, can you spot any difference in quality that you would notice while either playing a map or in the editor?

Most images will look very good (again, under the current resolution limit) around 600 to 900 kb, so that's why I'm suggesting setting a limit or guideline of 1.0mb maximum file size for background images.
First of all nice findings and nice waterfalls :)

Based on your findings, quality degradation starts at Quality 6. I don't know how to word it out but using JPEG with maximum 800kb size should be fine.

ezek wrote:

btw I just fixed the third link cuz it was displaying the wrong image zzz

anyway, I already said what I had to say, pishi has the last word I guess
EDIT: Quality degradation looks significant at Quality 6. So my point doesn't change

pishifat wrote:

A video's dimensions must not exceed a width of 1280 and a height of 720 pixels. Additionally, upscaling lower resolution video to a higher resolution should be avoided. This ensures video files do not become excessively large or resource intensive.
Also the video part seems ambiguous as there are factors like bit rate and file type to be used which in fact changes the file size significantly and can differ even if the resolution is 1280x720. The bit rate can affect how resource demanding the video can be. I can make a test beatmap to confirm this point. In file type, .flv is still used to support those who still use Fallback but majority uses stable.
Last edited by Nitrous , edited 3 times in total.
ZekeyHache
3,316 posts
Joined October 2009
ZekeyHache
btw I just fixed the third link cuz it was displaying the wrong image zzz

anyway, I already said what I had to say regarding bgs, pishi has the last word I guess

Nitrous wrote:

Also the video part seems ambiguous as there are factors like bit rate and file type to be used which in fact changes the file size significantly and can differ even if the resolution is 1280x720. The bit rate can affect how resource demanding the video can be.
About the bitrate part, it's better to not set a specific limit and also suggest to use variable bitrate videos. The amount of bitrate needed to have a good quality will depend on what's going on in the video, like amount of colors, movement, and flashy scenes. Two videos of the same length can have a significant difference in file size because of those factors.
Arzenvald
4,033 posts
Joined July 2013
Arzenvald
i agree with ezek's opinion about optimizing file size of backgrorund in guideline to save BSS storage maybe ayy
Xinnoh
Elite Mapper
1,950 posts
Joined April 2014
Xinnoh
Not a good example image because noise is much harder to see in real life images. There's a much bigger difference when its applied to drawings.

https://imgur.com/a/2xat6

Images in this album were out of order when I uploaded them, but it was very easy for me to tell which was which and label them just by looking at the quality.
ZekeyHache
3,316 posts
Joined October 2009
ZekeyHache

Sinnoh wrote:

Not a good example image because noise is much harder to see in real life images. There's a much bigger difference when its applied to drawings.

https://imgur.com/a/2xat6

Images in this album were out of order when I uploaded them, but it was very easy for me to tell which was which and label them just by looking at the quality.
I think you got the wrong idea here. I'm not saying that any specific compression setting must be used, I just showed what I used and the given result. In a drawing there will be usually less colors than in an irl picture, so you could compress a drawing at a higher setting than a picture and it'll even weight less than the picture. There's not much to compress in a drawing than in a picture, so obviously you will get a less quality result in the same setting where you could've gotten a good result in a picture.

For any image, whether it is 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 you don't really have to go over 1mb for it to look good. Any slight noise is not even noticeable unless you pay close attention and zoom the image. There's no real significant change.

In your picture you tried to make things look worse than there really are by showing the zoomed image, come on, we don't zoom images to play xp Also, I don't know where you got that image, but the one that you labeled on 12 (assuming it is the quality setting) has noise to begin with, so obviously you'll get even more noise if you compress it more. The heaviest image there is just 347kb, so why would you even think of compressing it more? We're talking about images that are more than 1mb.
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,802 posts
Joined August 2013
Topic Starter
pishifat
modified iyiyo's wording thing in the audio proposal

filesize discussion:
as far as i know, filesize isn't concerning enough to warrant rc restriction. people can upload maps with whatever filesizes they want and there's way more unranked maps than ranked ones, so server space is going to be hugely affected by downsizing ranked map bgs anyway

---

will leave proposal up for a bit longer in case anything was missed
Okoratu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,913 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoratu
https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/1164
Nozhomi
Global Moderator
4,568 posts
Joined May 2013
Nozhomi
Maybe add something about the video format who can be used, such as AVI / MP4 / etc...?
I ask that because I remember myself asking QATs about that and AVI was the only format accepted, and since video's dimensions would be now increased, maybe it means than mp4 is now allowed.
pishifat
osu! Paragon
3,802 posts
Joined August 2013
Topic Starter
pishifat
merged
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 20