[RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Support forum for DGDecNV
User avatar
MeteorRain
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:04 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by MeteorRain » Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:53 am

Unfortunately she's sleeping so I don't know exactly what brand and model she has.

But indeed it has only 2 GB memory. Would this card not be able to decode 8K video?

(And yes, I checked purevideo specs, and read 1050 does support 8K hevc.)

Control panel reads 436.30, and device manager reads 26.21.14.3630 on 9/5/2019.

User avatar
Rocky
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:57 pm

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by Rocky » Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:32 pm

Possibly with CUDA buffers and other stuff set up by DGDecNV, 2GB is not enough.

User avatar
Bullwinkle
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:37 pm

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by Bullwinkle » Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:38 pm

Hey Rock error 2 means out of memory on the device.

1050 Ti that works has 4GB.

User avatar
Rocky
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:57 pm

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by Rocky » Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:40 pm

Oh yeah, duh. Thanks Bullwinkle!

User avatar
MeteorRain
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:04 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by MeteorRain » Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:59 pm

So that means it can play back but cannot copy back full screen data back to ram?

Or it simply cannot decode such high resolution @ high bitrate?

I'll let her try playing the video locally and see if lavfilter could handle it. I'll report back later.

On the other hand, any options to turn off some CUDA buffers during indexing?

User avatar
Rocky
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:57 pm

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by Rocky » Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:01 pm

MeteorRain wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:59 pm
So that means it can play back but cannot copy back full screen data back to ram?

Or it simply cannot decode such high resolution @ high bitrate?
Bitrate is not important as it fails at init. Need a research project to find out why 2GB is not enough here, but it's not likely to get high on the priority list as 8K users will likely have high-end cards. Memory is allocated on the GPU for the kernels that convert back to RGB24 for display in DGIndexNV. That could be the difference. Can't see making hacks to salvage 2GB cards. Can't even think about CUDASynth in 2GB! :roll:

Time to deprecate 2GB cards?

User avatar
MeteorRain
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:04 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by MeteorRain » Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:31 pm

That does make sense. GTX 1050 is the only card that falls in 8K capable and 2GB graphics memory. 1650 comes with 4GB so it's unlikely hit someone in the future. By the time 8K video is getting popular I'm sure we will have much better cards to use.

We are kinda pioneers at working with 4k and 8k videos at the moment. It's the first time I get a broadcasting 8k capped.

gonca
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by gonca » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:48 pm

Quick and dirty experiment to measure video memory during indexing
GTX 1080 Ti with 11264 MB of VRAM
DGIndexNV (latest) and HWMonitor used

When indexing a BD file (2K) DGIndexNV uses 2% of memory (~225MB)
When indexing a UHD file (4K) DGIndexNV uses 7% of memory (~788 MB)
If we allow a ratio of 3 for 8K to 4K (frame size is about 4 times) then 2364 MB are required to index this 8K file
I would say that 4GB is a safe minimum for 8K.
The test file is too short to get a reading on memory. It is finished too quickly

User avatar
Bullwinkle
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:37 pm

Re: [RESOLVED] Coded frame dimensions are too large

Post by Bullwinkle » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 pm

Good stuff, thanks.

Post Reply