[Anime Viewer]

For reference when I refer to FineSharp (i) below I am referring to FineSharp in Image Enhancements, and when I refer to FineSharp (u) I am referring to FineSharp in Upscaling Refinement. Its easier that typing each phrase over and over again.

Originally Posted by madshi

Can you explain why you like it better/worse in either of these sections? In which way does it look better in image enhancement? In in which way does it look worse in upscaling refinement? Have you tested FineSharp alone (without SuperRes etc) in upscaling refinement? Do you still dislike linear light there? Or maybe it's only when used together with SuperRes?

The main benefit I see from using the Image Enhancement version as opposed to the Upscaling Refinement version is that the Image Enhancement version doesn't increase render times. That makes it more problem free (more universally usable) when it comes to using it across different gpus. Using the Upscaling Enhancement version the render times increase, and it can drag down a weak gpu.

The tests I have done when I made the second report (above) and this one were done without SuperRes, so only the first test I did involved using SuperRes in combination with FineSharp. As I reported in the first test report I felt that if one is combining FineSharp with SuperRes they seem to work better if they are both used from the Upscaling Refinement area.

When enabling Linear Light in FineSharp (i) I notice a significant change in shading and around black areas on the screen. Its a look I prefer having enabled as opposed to disabled in the (i) version. Linear Light in the (u) version has much less (an almost unperceptive) effect. Enabling Linear Light in the (u) version makes it look like a very small (insignificant) increase in sharpness/jaggedness. Very much insignificant in my view, and I'd have no objection to it enabled by default when used by the (u) version. I don't notice the change in blacks and shading with the (u) version like I do with the (i) version.

Originally Posted by madshi

Not really. Try this image:

http://madshi.net/castleOrg.png

Double it with NNEDI3, then apply FineSharp as upscaling refinement. Then compare repair with 0.0 to 1.0. Look at the diagonal roof lines. They contain a bit of aliasing when using repair 0.0, which is mostly gone with 1.0. Using 0.25 is somewhere in between. It's a subtle difference in this image. I've seen far worse aliasing caused by FineSharp in other images. Sadly I can't find them on a quick look right now.

I'm having a hard time seeing a difference. As I'm toggling things off and on I thought I may have been seeing a small change in the roof edges, but then when I toggle again I don't think I see any change, so I'm not sure if I'm seeing any effect from the repair feature. With that being said if its believed a 1.0 value improves things then I say go ahead and set it to that. I don't see anything getting worse or negatively effected by having it set to 1.0, so I see no reason not to have it default to that value.

Originally Posted by madshi

So you'd suggest 2.0 for "high" and 0.5 for "low"? Can you play with "thinning" a bit to see if you like those values to be changed in any way for high or low?

If Image Doubling is combined with FineSharp I think higher settings can be used with less negative effects (artifacts). Increasing the thinning setting gives the impression the image is composed of more tiny dots/circles and looks to increase sharpness slightly. In FineSharp (i) it higher settings (beyond default) give (for lack of a better term) a bit of an artificial look. I like the look of the sharpening increasing the setting gives when used in FineSharp (u). When I have more time I'll try to spend more time adjusting the thinning settings and see if there are certain values that appeal to me in each type of FineSharp situation.

Originally Posted by madshi

You mean using FineSharp in image enhancements, and then afterwards doubling? What kind of effect does doubling have on FineSharp in your experience?

Doubling smooths out the jaggedness (alaising) I see that is created when using FineSharp especially at the FineSharp's higher strength settings. Interestingly enough I feel like I see it having different effects depending on which FineSharp it is used with. When using Doubling with the FineSharp in image enhancements it greatly reduces the amount of artifacts I see.
When using Doubling with the FineSharp in upscaling refinement it smooths out jaggedness of alaising lines. (When comparing FineSharp (i) to FineSharp (u) at the same strengths FineSharp (u) is more of a blurry image with far less artifacts. To a degree Doubling may be reducing artifacts with FineSharp (u) as well, and reducing sharping edges with FineSharp (i), but given that the pre-doubled image was already pretty smooth with FineSharp (i), and the pre-doubled image with FineSharp (u) was pretty artifact free before doubling the effects are less noticeable). Combining both FineSharps (aka enabling both) doesn't appear to look too bad as long as both are reduced in strength by half (causing the total strength to FineSharp to remain the same when all is said and done), but then you bring in the possibility of FineSharp (u) increasing render speeds and dragging down weaker gpu.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by GCRaistlin

There's another annoying issue that is present in all madVR builds I've used so far. The problem is that it should be very hard to reproduce.
I use Mozilla Firefox, and there are always a lot of tabs open there (185 for now). When playing a video with madVR on the 2nd monitor Firefox sometimes crashes, sometimes behaves weird (only the window title is displayed, the rest is "transparent" - the contents of a background window is visible). I don't know if this is caused either by some of the opened tabs, or by playing on the 2nd monitor, or even by madVR (EVR CP looks really ugly on the projector + 140" screen, and the issue is too unstable and relative rarely appearing to perform a good test). But it does exist.

It sounds to me like you are running out of memory. If you either leave task manager open, or open it once you encounter the problem how much memory does it say your browser is using? How much memory do you have in your system? I've seen similar effects to what you describe when people run out of memory. The fault is with the browser and it leaking memory as opposed to madVR. If you type "about:memory" in your address bar you can use the buttons under free memory to reclaim some of it. Tabs that are running Adobe, Java, and video plugins (even if you don't have any of them actively playing) can be huge memory leaks. You can try FireFox developer edition, and see if that works better - in my testing it leaks far less memory. Finally as it relates to madVR you can reduce the queue settings, so that it uses less memory (and frees up more for your browser), but doing that may have a negative effect on your video playback. Its something you'd have to experiment with yourself, and determine if it makes things better or worse.