Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi
Feedback
please concentrate your efforts on FineSharp. I would like to remove all the FineSharp controls, and just end up with low/medium/high (for both "image enhancement" and "upscaling refinement"). When testing FineSharp, it would make sense to disable LumaSharpen and SuperRes, so that you really only test FineSharp separately. You can test FineSharp either in image enhancements (before upscaling) or in upscaling refinement (after upscaling). Testing it before upscaling should have a stronger effect, so it might be easier to see the difference between various settings there. But you decide whether you want to test it before or after upscaling.
Questions:
1) Do you prefer linear light on or off?
2) In my own very short tests I found that FineSharp sometimes introduces aliasing artifacts. These seem to be mostly fixed by setting the "repair" option to rather high values. Personally, I've tried setting "repair" to 1.0, and liked the result. But what is your opinion about this? Do you find "repair" at 1.0 works for you? Or would you prefer it at a lower value?
3) Do you see a difference worth noting between the 3 different modes? Please note that these modes will make more of a difference if the sources have stronger grain. So in order to judge which modes work best and which worst, it might make sense to also test with a source with a lot of grain in it. FWIW, mode 3 is slower, modes 1 and 2 are faster. So if you like mode 3 best, but not much better than 1 and 2, then it would still be useful to know whether you prefer 1 over 2 or the other way round.
4) Which combinations of strength and thinning would you suggest for low/medium/high presets?
Thanks! 
|
I realized one thing I forgot to mention in
my previous post on my thoughts and testing of finesharp: On my Optimus system if I use any of the FineSharp modes in upscaling refinement combined with having image doubling enabled while using my Intel GPU the screen has spasams of what look like flashes of repeated frames (but it doesn't report any delayed frames). A ton of presentation glitches occur along with a handful of dropped frames. (Presentation glitches far out number the amount of dropped frames reported in that same time period). Using the Nvidia GPU no such problem occurs. This is another reason why I prefer using the FineSharp in image enhancement as opposed to the FineSharp in upscaling refinement. With the the FineSharp in image enhancement I can combine it with image doubling and playback using the Intel without any problems.
Now to your specific questions:
1) Like I said in my previous post in FineSharp testing I like FineSharp better with linear light enabled if I'm using the image enhancement version, but if I'm using the upscaling refinement version I prefer it off.
2) The repair setting has no noticable effect as far as I can tell on my system. I see no difference (no improvement) between having a setting of 0.10 and 1.0.
Is there another madVR setting that might be interfering with the the repair effect?
3) I'm not seeing a significant difference between the three modes. (I guess my test videos don't have enough grain).
4) I think I prefer lesser amounts of strength. What else is combined with with FineSharp to enhance/refine/upscale can be a factor to what to set FineSharp to. With more power choices in other areas FineSharp can be used with lesser power. I think 0.5 isn't a bad setting. Depending on other peoples thoughts that might make a good low. Thinning could be left at the current default unless there is a general consensus by other users that another setting works better.
I think its worth people reporting if they used any type of image doubling during their testing. For me image doubling has a very strong effect on FineSharp.