Log In  

Cart #iliazeus_badapple_but-1 | 2024-07-06 | Code ▽ | Embed ▽ | License: CC4-BY-NC-SA
5

...but it never actually starts :)

I wanted to do a proper Bad Apple!! rendition for Pico-8, but wound up hitting the compressed size limitation way too early. So I've decided to do a little trolling, and only include a looped intro. I'm still kinda proud of it though, because I managed to do it in full 128x128 resolution at 15 FPS.

I've tried my best with the drums in the intro, but couldn't figure out how to emulate hi-hats properly. Also, it doesn't match the original BPM of 138 - it's set at speed 13, which is slightly slower, but speed 12 is slightly faster.

For the video frames, I implemented a quadtree-based compression method and encoded the results in base32. I'm sure there are still ways to improve compression - for example, each frame is now compressed independently, so there's still redundancy.

If you have any other ideas, please tell me in the comments!

P#150924 2024-07-06 10:45

1

Haha, awesome troll. While I see the appeal of 128x128, using the 64x64 poke seems a no-brainer given the constraints.
What you can do is using multiple carts : when you run a cart from another one, everything LUA related is lost, but a lot of the 64K pico-8 memory is not cleared (including the 2nd 32K), so chain carts to fill every bit of the uncleared memory with compressed data, and do the decoding/playing in the last of the chain.
Alternatively, you can drop BBS support and add a lot of data carts to the project.

P#150927 2024-07-06 13:42
1

@RealShadowCaster thanks for your feedback!

> using the 64x64 poke seems a no-brainer given the constraints

Due to how quadtree compression works, I'm actually almost never poking individual pixels - I instead fill bigger squares whenever possible. Because of that, I am able to even hit 30 FPS - I only settled on 15 FPS because of size considerations.

I can lower the resolution just to help the compression, but it won't help that much here, since the whole video is still way too large.

> What you can do is using multiple carts

I am considering it, except loading each cart introduces sizable and not-quite-predictable delay, and I wanted to, ideally, sync this to music. I could, of course, just do some video editing magic for that - but what's the fun in that? :)

P#150994 2024-07-08 12:46
1

My suggestions put all the delay at the start, no more data loading once the music starts to run.
Between the uncleared memory filled by previous carts and the data from the last one that plays the video, I think you could have around 90K of compressed data for a BBS/splore version, and 500K for standalone export.
As a reference, the c64 version was 12fps and 140K of compressed data, so there's hope I think.

P#151011 2024-07-08 15:36
1

@RealShadowCaster I didn't actually know that data can be passed that way, thank you!

I've played around with this, and now I can fit all of Bad Apple on 2 data carts... except it's 64x64 and 1 FPS :) But I'll try to thing of something else to improve.

I've watched the Commodore 64 demo you've mentioned. It seems to use a very different compression approach than me, so maybe I'll try to implement something similar.

P#151014 2024-07-08 18:20

I haven't looked at your cart to see what it's doing, but have you seen the 1bit compression demonstrated here https://www.lexaloffle.com/bbs/?pid=113904 ? might help unless you're already doing something similar or better

P#151023 2024-07-08 19:45

@kozm0naut as far as I understood, the author of that post doesn't really do any actual compression, they just store 1 bit per pixel. If I'd just done that, a single 128x128 frame would take up 2048 bytes, or 3276 characters in base32.

I do actual image compression on top of that, so whole 128x128 frames become less than 250 bytes, or 400 base32 characters.

But that still only allows me to do about 0.6 FPS if I try to fit the whole video, even when using the upper 32K trick.

P#151024 2024-07-08 20:14 ( Edited 2024-07-08 20:14)
1

Here's something probably worth trying :
same quadtree encoding logic, except the bits of the uncompressed 128x128 (or 64x64 ?) array mean same/different from previous frame, instead of black and white.
By doing so you lose the ability to jump around in the video, but should gain some file size in exchange.
Once that is implemented, you could try having a small KXYT frame header, where K is a single bit telling if the frame is key (IE encoded as black and white instead of as a difference to another frame), X is a signed horizontal offset, Y a signed vertical offset, and T an unsigned time offset. XYT are only there if the frame is not key.
Key frames are rarely optimal, but have the added advantage that you can jump to them, and the 1bit/frame loss is usually an acceptable tradeoff.
Finding the smallest KXYT encoding for each frame might take some time but that's work outside pico-8 so no big deal, and should result in even smaller average frame encoding size, as you'd start to leverage cyclic movements and camera movements.

I might be wrong, but I don't think that implementing zoom based offsets is worth it in this case : too much CPU cost, too little file size gain, and shouldn't play nice with the boundaries of the quadtree cells.

P#151027 2024-07-08 21:59
2

@RealShadowCaster I've finally implemented your multi-cartridge suggestion in a BBS-compatible way! I can now do the whole video at 1.5 FPS and 64x64 resolution:

Cart #iliazeus_badapple_but-9 | 2024-07-09 | Code ▽ | Embed ▽ | License: CC4-BY-NC-SA
2

P#151037 2024-07-09 06:01
2

Cart #sugijogare-0 | 2024-07-09 | Code ▽ | Embed ▽ | No License


Did a little test cart that initializes all the 64K memory to the magic value 0xBAADF00D (both appropriate as a non initialized value, and as a bad apple research cart)
At the time of testing, the following ranges are not reset :
0x4300 to 0x5EFF , that's 7KB
That includes the cartdata address range, so beware not to call cartdata before you retrieve data you may have stored there.

0x5F00 to 0x5FFF was voluntarily excluded from the search, as writing in there messes with pretty much everything, and the hardware state keeps changing on its own anyway.

0x6000 to 0x7FFF. This is the 8K of video memory. Perfectly fine to use as data transfer space, love it.
And of course, the high memory
0x8000 to 0xFFFF, 32K
In total that's 47KB of data transferable by memory.

More data can come from the source code of the last cart of the chain, or from the 0-0x42FF range that could be made to contain compressed data, but it seems my 90K guesstimate was optimistic.

P#151045 2024-07-09 13:01

@RealShadowCaster wow, thank you! This is insanely helpful!

Right now, I'm using the whole upper 32K, and then fill the 0x0000-0x3000 range from code in the last cart, so 44K of data in total. That allows for about 2.14 FPS (30 divided by 14) at 64x64 resolution.

The idea of using video memory to pass data is definitely a promising one. However, I'll need to rewrite my code somewhat to allow for that - that data needs to be moved out of video memory before the rendering starts, and I don't do that right now, instead peek()'ing it directly from memory addresses while rendering.

I also tested how much data can be passed as a "parameter string", the one that's accessible via STAT(6). Apparently, it's capped at 1024 bytes, so not much luck there.

P#151055 2024-07-09 16:41

I've rewatched your 1.5 FPS and 64x64 and noticed something : the 16 top rows and the 16 bottom rows of the video are always black.
Most of the time these will be encoded as 16 quads (8 16px x 16px top and 8 bottom).
I you internally store your frames rolled up or down by 16 pixels, the black bars would be encoded as 4 32px x 32px instead.

Another thing : the quad data strings are significantly compressible. In fact, pico-8 does compress them quite well into the data pngs. While this means you are potentially using less carts, this is not the optimization we want.
Uncompressing the data string into a is something parsable in a timely manner is just extra wait time before the video starts, so compressing the quad data stream with px9 should be worth it.
This would wreck the encoding compression by pico-8, leading to more data carts to fill the memory with compressed data, but the 47KB of data would be worth more picture info in the end.

Question about CPU while decompressing : how much spare do you have at worst? I'm asking because the blocky 64x64 look could be smoothed into a 128x128 with cellular automata logic, if you have the CPU time.

EDIT : the compression bit was bit unclear. I'm not suggestion to use px9 compressing on the data strings :

quad data binary stream -> compressed stream (px9/huffman/whatever works best)-> data strings, base 32 is fine.

P#151105 2024-07-10 05:31 ( Edited 2024-07-10 05:32)

@RealShadowCaster

> internally store your frames rolled up or down by 16 pixels

Funnily enough, I just implemented that yesterday! I just don't post every single improvement on the BBS, but it's in my Git repo if you're interested: https://github.com/iliazeus/pico8-badapple

> Another thing : the quad data strings are significantly compressible.

I'm not sure about that, actually. I've tested gzip on raw quadtree data, and it compressed 15K of it to about 14K, with less than 1K of a difference. So I don't really know if implementing a complex compression algorithm will be worth it.

I do use a somewhat clever encoding scheme for the data, though. Using the fact that leaf nodes are about 3 times as likely as internal nodes, I use 2 bits per internal nodes, and about 1.5 bits (on average) per leaf node (or exactly 1 bit if it's at max depth, where no internal nodes are possible).

All the optimizations above were included in my 64x64 2.14FPS figure.

> Question about CPU while decompressing : how much spare do you have at worst?

Quite a lot, actually! Since Pico-8 only limits the amount of Lua VM instructions per second, not actual real CPU ones, doing one PSET() takes about the same virtual CPU time as one LINE() or even one RECTFILL() - and my rendering is based around doing RECTFILLs!

So yeah, I'll try to look into some kind of a smoothing algorithm.

P#151107 2024-07-10 06:17

I can see why gzip doesn't perform well on a small bit stream when it's elemental input data block is the byte. Maybe give it a raw 1 character per quad input to see if it does better ?

About Rectfill, I've stayed away from it out of habit from other platforms. Knowing that a full screen rectfill with fillp patterns costs the same as a pset feels both wrong and very exploitable. (reminds me the time when I replaced integers with floats ins C64 basic to improve(!) performance) Maybe the new memset is rectfill ! I'll definitly play with it a bit. Any other tricks in the same veign ? I've only really tested map() for performance, and the CPU cost is roughly proportional to the surface of the screen affected, so now I'm curious. Is spr() cost related to screen surface affected like map or fixed cost like rectfill for example ?

P#151109 2024-07-10 07:40 ( Edited 2024-07-10 08:12)

@RealShadowCaster to be honest, what I wrote earlier about RECTFILL being fast was mostly based on my (limited) understanding of how Pico-8 works, as well as on what I've observed with the Bad Apple and some other projects (like the PX9 compression demo not being able to draw the whole screen picture wholly during one frame).

So I went and did some tests!

I made three programs. All of them just fill the screen with a solid color each frame, but in different ways.

The first one does it pixel-by-pixel with PSET:

function _update()
    for y = 0, 127 do
        for x = 0, 127 do
            pset(x, y, 0)
        end
    end
end

This simple loop ends up taking a whopping 53% CPU:

The second one used LINE, with 128 horizontal lines. I kept the X loop to even out the odds (and yes, I've tested, the interpreter doesn't just optimize it out):

function _update()
    for y = 0, 127 do
        for x = 0, 12 do end
        line(0, y, 127, y, 0)
    end
end

This improves the CPU metric by a lot. Only 3% is used now:

The final one just does one full-screen RECTFILL. Again, the loops are preserved:

function _update()
    for y = 0, 127 do
        for x = 0, 12 do end
    end
    rectfill(0, 0, 127, 127, 0)
end

This reports only 2% CPU usage:

I have two hypotheses on what happens. Either, as I said before, the work built-ins like PSET or RECTFILL do does not count towards the CPU limit; or the overhead of function calls is just way too large.

P#151110 2024-07-10 10:28

@RealShadowCaster I also tested POKEing the screen memory directly. Running a similar screen-fill test with POKE, POKE2 and POKE4 gave me 24%, 12% and 6% CPU usage respectively:

--POKE test
function _update()
    for i = 0x6000, 0x7fff do
        poke(i, 0)
    end
end

--POKE2 test
function _update()
    for i = 0x6000, 0x7fff, 2 do
        poke2(i, 0)
    end
end

--POKE4 test
function _update()
    for i = 0x6000, 0x7fff, 4 do
        poke4(i, 0)
    end
end
P#151111 2024-07-10 10:37

@RealShadowCaster looks like function call overhead might be the main culprit here. I changed my PSET test to call a dummy function that does nothing, and it still uses 65% CPU. And when I change it to do a whole-screen RECTFILL instead of each PSET, I get over 100%.

So yeah, I was wrong initially, and CPU time is still being spent inside built-ins. It's just that calling a function introduces a huge overhead, so any rendering code (that doesn't just use MAP() and a couple of SPR()s) needs to aim at reducing the number of function calls.

Either way, my compression method still leaves me a lot of CPU time. Even the original 128x128 15FPS loop only takes up 42% CPU at its peak, and I don't currently do any work at all during frames that I skip.

P#151114 2024-07-10 10:48

Too bad, no magic Rectfill I guess.
A simple (but CPU hungry) 64x64 big pixels upscaler :a white mini pixel turns light grey if the three adjacent big pixels are black, and a black mini pixel turns dark grey if the three adjacent big pixels are white.

P#151121 2024-07-10 13:11

@RealShadowCaster

> I can see why gzip doesn't perform well on a small bit stream when it's elemental input data block is the byte. Maybe give it a raw 1 character per quad input to see if it does better ?

I've tested gzip with one byte per tree node on the 64x64 2.14 FPS data. Gzip turns it into 51978 bytes; my current encoding does better - 44858 bytes. If I do my encoding, and then gzip it, I get 40212 bytes - which is an improvement, but still not worth implementing DEFLATE in Lua :)

If I ever come up with a more compressible qtree representation, though, I will test gzip again.

P#151168 2024-07-11 11:32
1

If I understood your code correctly,
you have 0 and 1 for black and white if at maximal resolution.

otherwise
0 for monochrome square, same color as last of the stream
10 for monochrome square, opposite color as last of the stream
11 for black and white square.

I'm wondering, if instead of referring to the last color of the stream we referred to the color of the pixel to the left of current position, wouldn't we hit the 1bit encoding of big squares more often ?

Another way to reduce the pixel distance between the encoded square and the referenced color to hit the 1bit encoding more frequently would be to keep the encoding but changing transverse order of the image to follow a hilbert curve (like my avatar) rather than the current recursive reading order.

P#151173 2024-07-11 14:28

One more idea I want to test is to store the qtree breadth-first instead of depth-first. The logic being that upper tree structure is probably similar between (most) neighboring frames, so if we store that first, we might reuse it between frames. Like, store a byte before each frame that says how many bits to reuse from the start of the previous frame.

P#151176 2024-07-11 14:33
4

I've managed to add the music! And, more importantly, to sync the frames to music. Had to speed it up though.

Cart #iliazeus_badapple_but-16 | 2024-07-11 | Code ▽ | Embed ▽ | License: CC4-BY-NC-SA
4

I'll probably do no huge changes at this point. Will maybe work on the music a bit more, but then I'm done. But it was definitely fun!

@RealShadowCaster, thank you for your help!

P#151196 2024-07-11 21:53

[Please log in to post a comment]