View Single Post
Old 5th February 2017, 14:35   #42274  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Have you tried zooming into the images to see the differences more clearly?
i have to zoom in i try to judge these very small images on a UHD screen.[/quote]

Quote:
For example, here are NNEDI3-256 and NGU pixart med at 300% zoom. Where does NNEDI3 look more natural here? The "M" in "TIME" looks better with NNEDI3-256. In every other part of the image, I personally prefer NGU pixart med. NNEDI3 also has a lot of very noticeable artifacts. And btw, NNEDI3-256 is about 3000% slower compared to NGU pixart med (!!!).
my problem is tht NGU pixart looks to thin on some parts compared to other scaler and compared to the source.
on real world images the difference is really small on the images i have tested so far.
speed is hard to judge on a modern GPU that is change the clock all the time.

Quote:
Or let's look at a photo instead of a game screenshot. The low-res photo was downscaled using a box filter so it has more aliasing than usual. Here's again how NNEDI3-256 and NGU pixart med compare.

I suppose I could offer even softer NGU pixart variants, but is it really needed? I posted a pixart image comparison with a very old very aliased game screenshot because that's really the hardest image type to get upscaled nicely. I think with real world images NGU and NNEDI3 look very similar.

Would be great if you could do some real world comparisons.
comes for sure but it needs time. for the time i agree on this.
but i never was a friend of nnedi3 anyway.

Quote:
Are NNEDI3 and NGU pixart "his or miss", too? I think they beat super-xbr pretty much all the time.

I do not want to leave Polaris users behind, though, so I might keep super-xbr for the time being, just because it's probably still noticeably faster than NGU pixart for Polaris users.

For comparison sake, here are the super-xbr 300% Mario zoomed image, and the clown zoomed by super-xbr. Look at the front wheel in the clown image. It's still quite aliased when using super-xbr. Less so with NNEDI3-256, and even less so with NGU pixart med.

It's true that "medium" is a noticeable improvement over "low", but it's also a bit slower. There may be users whose GPU can perform "low" but not "medium". So why remove "low"? Is it really *that* terrible? If I compare it to NNEDI-16, IMHO NGU pixart "low" competes just fine. Or try comparing "low" to the regular (non-pixart) NGU variant!
to be totally honest super XBR looks terrible on mario. his face looks deformed...
the lines are generally way to thick on top of it.
super XBR is bad on the clown too. it is simply not perfect in removing aliasing.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote