View Single Post
Old 8th June 2015, 19:09   #30863  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Thanks everyone for your FEEDBACK so far, appreciated!

Some conclusions I could draw from your combined feedback:

1) The SuperRes "high error upscaling quality" can be deleted.
2) Some users like FineSharp a lot, others not at all. <sigh>
3) Most users found LumaSharpen to be moderately useful, although not perfect.
4) With some sources sharpening before upscaling doesn't work well.
5) SuperRes seems to be well liked, but performance hungry.

My impression is that - although we've made some progress - we won't get to where we want to get, with everyone testing everything. I fear my last feedback request was too broad and not specific enough. Would you guys agree? I'm wondering whether we should switch two gears back and simply start by looking at one algorithm at a time, to reduce each algorithm's complexity first, before looking at how they interact. E.g. we could start with FineSharp, looking at all the available options, and reducing them to a low/med/high. Then move on to LumaSharpen etc. Doing this would also make testing of the combined effects of all algos easier. Or what do you guys think?
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote