Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Hardware & Software > Software players

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 21st November 2016, 06:29   #40481  |  Link
khanmein
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
all working here!! thank you Madshi!
gtx1070
y u didn't use D3D11?
khanmein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 08:08   #40482  |  Link
Ver Greeneyes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 447
I think I missed some important posts before, going to try turning off the deringing pre-processing next time and switch to a different option for image upscaling to minimize the overhead.

I wish there was a way to use a different regular upscaler for just the chroma doubling part though - if you have to double and then upscale more (e.g. 720p->1440p->2160p) I don't know if CatmullAR is the best option for the last part. I don't know how you'd work it into the UI though - the list for image doubling options is already pretty long. Maybe you could add at least one 'good' lower quality upscaler to the list of chroma doubling options?

By the way, I always feel weird neglecting Chroma like this, but I guess I really can't tell the difference anyway :P Oh, and I hope that question about whether SSIM after doubling makes sense or if bicubic150 is enough at that point gets answered - pretty easy to add a profile that just switches to bicubic150 if (targetWidth > srcWidth) || (targetHeight > srcHeight).

Last edited by Ver Greeneyes; 21st November 2016 at 08:13.
Ver Greeneyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 08:32   #40483  |  Link
Mistery 73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 31
good morning everyone ... with the new release it all works fine on win 10 madshi thanks ..
boys whom I recommended settings with the new NUG algorithms for upscaling from 1080-> 4K I have a video card 1070 GTX.

I want canditare Madshi the oscar award
Mistery 73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 08:58   #40484  |  Link
Anima123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 503
For me NGU is not just sharp, it is also clear in the edge of faces in video, even in motion.

SuperRes, IMHO, tend to add some kind of attachments to the edge of faces, which can be really painfully annoying. It's quite hard to sescribe the effect, maybe the algorithm was puzzled distinguishing the face edge and the background. I would've ask madVR to keep SuperRes if it didn't suffer that kind of artefacts.
Anima123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 10:26   #40485  |  Link
Gagorian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 27
I have an EVGA GTX 1070 on my HTPC, outputting to a 4k LG OLED.

I've replaced NNEDI64 (+SR2) for luma doubling of 720p/1080p to 2160p with NGU High and the performance is slightly better. There's a little bit of coil whine but it's inaudible with any audio on.

In case of 720p material what do you guys prefer, doubling 720p to 1440p with NGU High and using Jinc AR to scale to 2160p or quadrupling to 2880p with NGU High+Med and downscaling to 2160p using SSIM1D with LL and AR?

Currently I'm using sxbr 125 for all chroma upscaling. Does anyone else have another strong preference?

Last edited by Gagorian; 21st November 2016 at 10:29.
Gagorian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 10:52   #40486  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagorian View Post
Currently I'm using sxbr 125 for all chroma upscaling. Does anyone else have another strong preference?
Recon soft and NNEDI3 32+ are the best alternatives. I prefer sxbr 125 AR.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 11:15   #40487  |  Link
StinDaWg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by JarrettH View Post
What are the technical differences between low, med, and high? Is each setting the same sharpness?
Interested in knowing this too. What are we actually giving up by using lower settings? Sharpness? More artifacts? Ringing?

I really don't see any difference between low-med-high when switching between them with normal live action video content.

High might look ever so slightly sharper than low on things like text, but that could just be placebo effect.

So, please tell us madshi so I don't lose my mind trying to spot the differences.
StinDaWg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 11:58   #40488  |  Link
HillieSan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 176
I have done another test with my RX 480.

Image upscaling: Calmull-Rom
Chroma doubling: off
Luma doubling:
NGU low 11 ms
NGU med 19 ms
NGU high 42 ms
NNEDI3 16 12 ms
NNEDI3 32 16 ms
NNEDI3 64 22 ms
NNEDI3 128 34 ms
NNEDI3 256 59 ms

Image upscaling to DXVA2 disables doubling and performs at 3-8 ms.

Enabling “run custom pixel shades in video levels instead of PC levels” saves 1-2 ms.

MPC-BE saves 1-2 ms compared to MPC-HC. (latest versions)

The strange thing is that I see just minor differences between DXVA2 and NGU low (and other scalers). The smoothness of DXVA2 (8 ms) makes the image better. Perhaps it is the noise in the movie that kills the improvements of the scalers. Or perhaps this is caused by the e-shift of the JVC X5000. Dunno.

BTW. The fan goes to high when using NGU low-high.

Last edited by HillieSan; 21st November 2016 at 12:33.
HillieSan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 13:25   #40489  |  Link
Betroz
Is this for real?
 
Betroz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norway
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post
Interested in knowing this too. What are we actually giving up by using lower settings? Sharpness? More artifacts? Ringing?

I really don't see any difference between low-med-high when switching between them with normal live action video content.

High might look ever so slightly sharper than low on things like text, but that could just be placebo effect.

So, please tell us madshi so I don't lose my mind trying to spot the differences.
I would like to know that too. NGU looks very similar to NNEDI3 64/128. Maybe that is a good thing, I don't know. One thing I have noticed though, is that there is more aliasing with NGU High than there is with NNEDI3 64/128.

So I will keep using NNEDI3 for now @ madshi
__________________
My HTPC : i9 10900K | nVidia RTX 4070 Super | TV : Samsung 75Q9FN QLED

Last edited by Betroz; 21st November 2016 at 13:27.
Betroz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 13:43   #40490  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
Recon soft and NNEDI3 32+ are the best alternatives. I prefer sxbr 125 AR.
What's so great about reckon soft? Often there is no much difference to Jinc/super-xbr, unlike sharp it introduces dark haloing as well. So I don't see any point to use it over a non-luma guided scaler.
And still no one has provided images why super-xbr 125 would be the king for chroma. Did you try NGU low?
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 14:37   #40491  |  Link
fedpul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
What's so great about reckon soft? Often there is no much difference to Jinc/super-xbr, unlike sharp it introduces dark haloing as well. So I don't see any point to use it over a non-luma guided scaler.
And still no one has provided images why super-xbr 125 would be the king for chroma. Did you try NGU low?
Hi aufkrawall.

I did upload a comparison showing the differences a few posts ago.

This is the link: http://imgur.com/a/JSJBn

I compared: SXBR 100 AR, Recon Soft, NNEDI 256 and NGU High. From them all NGU is the worst to my eyes. NNEDI 256 is the best to my eyes but the performance cost is not acceptable for chroma, plus in motion is harder to see differences in chroma.

Where to look: http://imgur.com/SwKvVMg

Last edited by fedpul; 21st November 2016 at 14:45. Reason: Where to look added!
fedpul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 15:25   #40492  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
Thank you, I somehow missed that.
I suspect that we see the same problem here we see with really bad sources regarding NGU and luma doubling, the excessive ringing leads to quite unpleasant results.
In my American Dad cartoon example with not such excessive ringing, NGU clearly leads to better reconstructed chroma by even less ringing than s-XBR.
Can you try also NGU low? It's a bit softer than high.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 15:31   #40493  |  Link
EpsilonX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 55
@madshi
Is this behaviour normal..?

Attached Images
 

Last edited by EpsilonX; 21st November 2016 at 15:48.
EpsilonX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 15:37   #40494  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
Please uplodad the image to some imagehost, it won't be accessible here for some time else.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 15:39   #40495  |  Link
fedpul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Thank you, I somehow missed that.
I suspect that we see the same problem here we see with really bad sources regarding NGU and luma doubling, the excessive ringing leads to quite unpleasant results.
In my American Dad cartoon example with not such excessive ringing, NGU clearly leads to better reconstructed chroma by even less ringing than s-XBR.
Can you try also NGU low? It's a bit softer than high.
Hi, I will do it, I need to learn how to go to an exact frame. Cause I don't know how to do that, I will upload every algo again in the same frame. (Could be another frame but the same image) but it will be later. I am working in a big algo comparison. I will upload this comparison soon, I think it can help madshi.
fedpul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 15:59   #40496  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
Can be a bit tricky to jump to the exact frames in mediaplayer, even when you tell MPC HC/BE to jump exactly to frame x. You may have to seek a bit frame by frame with ctrl + arrow keys.
A more "secure" way would probably be AviSynth with the Trim function.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 16:51   #40497  |  Link
Gagorian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedpul View Post
Hi aufkrawall.

I did upload a comparison showing the differences a few posts ago.

This is the link: http://imgur.com/a/JSJBn

I compared: SXBR 100 AR, Recon Soft, NNEDI 256 and NGU High. From them all NGU is the worst to my eyes. NNEDI 256 is the best to my eyes but the performance cost is not acceptable for chroma, plus in motion is harder to see differences in chroma.

Where to look: http://imgur.com/SwKvVMg
I think sxbr 100 AR is very similar to NNEDI 256 in these examples. In fact so similar I doubt you could see the difference in motion.
Gagorian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 16:53   #40498  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by JarrettH View Post
I'm curious to know more What are the technical differences between low, med, and high? Is each setting the same sharpness?
It might be roughly the same sharpness, but the "higher" levels are cleaner, less aliased and more focused. There's no free lunch, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warner306 View Post
Is it possible to post a detailed description of NGU and what it does, similar to this post on NNEDI3:

Demonstration of NNEDI3 Image Doubling
You mean a detailed image comparison, explaining the strengths and weaknesses etc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betroz View Post
NGU looks very similar to NNEDI3 64/128.
No. NGU is *significantly* sharper than NNEDI3 64/128.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betroz View Post
One thing I have noticed though, is that there is more aliasing with NGU High than there is with NNEDI3 64/128.
NGU in most cases has *less* aliasing than NNEDI3+SuperRes. A comparison to "straight NNEDI3" (without SuperRes) doesn't make too much sense because it's a completely different world of sharpness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betroz View Post
So I will keep using NNEDI3 for now
That's your choice, of course. But I think your comparison was probably flawed.

Did you use SuperRes in your comparison? If so, did you activate it for both NGU and NNEDI3? Do *not* do that. I've said it many times now: NGU does not benefit from SuperRes, results can actually get somewhat worse when switching SuperRes on with NGU. So use NGU alone, without SuperRes. On the other hand, if you want to compare NNEDI3 to NGU, you almost have no other choice than to use combine NNEDI3+SuperRes, because otherwise the difference in sharpness is simply too big to do any useful comparisons. So IMHO the proper comparison would be "NGU without SuperRes" and "NNEDI3 with SuperRes".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EpsilonX View Post
Is this behaviour normal..?
I don't know your settings, so I can't say for sure. I see nothing wrong with the screenshot, though.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 16:55   #40499  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
RX480 users

I've received an email from a non-doom9 madVR user. He had big trouble with NGU performance with his AMD GPU, but found a way to fix it. Maybe it helps the RX480 users?

Quote:
I think idle memory clock (=Radeon power management) is the root cause
of very slow NGU.

My Radeon 290X render times and memory clock are
16ms and 1250MHz when NNEDI3 64neurons
190ms and 150MHz when NGU high

and when I fixed memory clock to 1250MHz,
NGU render time goes down to 24ms. 8times faster!!

#PC setting
Windows10 Pro 64bit anniversary
AMD Radeon 290X & driver 16.10.3
MadVR 0.91.1 , 720p movie
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2016, 17:21   #40500  |  Link
Neet009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 21
Something of my test.

GTX 1060 6GB (driver 373.06)
Monitor 1920x1080 60Hz
win7 x64
MPC-BE x64

The power state of videocard is troublesome, I have to set mpc-be64.exe to maximum performance on NV control panel, otherwise I would get variable rendering time(it would become very high) and many dropped frames.

madVR settings:
zoom control off
debanding on (low/high)
deringing off
smooth motion on
dithering - ED1
D3D11 FSE mode
chroma upscaling - Bilateral soft
image downscaling - SSIM 1D+AR+LL
image upscaling - Jinc+AR
image doubling - check double luma only except super-xbr

720x480 > 1920x1080
super-xbr 100 6ms
nnedi3 16 9.5ms
nnedi3 32 10ms
nnedi3 64 11ms
nnedi3 64+SR4 14.5ms
nnedi3 128 13ms
NGU low 9ms
NGU low 6ms(image upscaling - Catmull-Rom+AR)
NGU med 9.5ms
NGU high 11ms

640x480 > 1920x1080
super-xbr 100 6ms
nnedi3 16 8ms
nnedi3 32 9ms
nnedi3 64 10.5ms
nnedi3 64+SR4 12.5ms
nnedi3 128 14ms
NGU low 7ms
NGU low 5.5ms(image upscaling - Catmull-Rom+AR)
NGU med 8ms
NGU high 11ms

1280x720 > 2560x1440 > 1920x1080
super-xbr 100 8ms
nnedi3 16 11.5ms
nnedi3 32 13ms
nnedi3 64 17ms
nnedi3 64+SR4 24ms
nnedi3 128 24.5ms
NGU low 11ms
NGU low 9ms(image upscaling - Catmull-Rom+AR)
NGU med 13ms
NGU high 20ms

1920x1080 > 3840x2160 > 1920x1080 (image downscaling - bilinear)
super-xbr 100 10.5ms
nnedi3 16 19ms
nnedi3 32 23ms
nnedi3 64 31ms
nnedi3 64+SR4 52ms
nnedi3 128 50ms
NGU low 18ms
NGU low 12ms(image upscaling - Catmull-Rom+AR)
NGU med 22ms
NGU high 39ms

Acrodding to my test, for performance, NGU-high is between NNEDI3-64 and NNEDI3-128, NGU-med is as much as NNEDI3-32,
NGU-low is less than NNEDI3-16 but more than super-xbr 100.
In my opinion, NGU is amazing and useful, I think it is good for real-life content that I can raplace NNEDI3 and super-xbr, it brings the sharpness similar to NNEDI3+SR4 and less artifacts, and faster. But for anime content I still prefer NNEDI3(no SR) over NGU especially for low-res and high compression content. For anime, NNEDI3 did a good job of reducing aliasing, NGU is a little too sharp that aliasing and artifacts become more visible, NNEDI3 is more clean even though NGU might closer to original picture.(NGU-high has less artifacts than NGU-low, but still more than NNEDI3)
For anime, personally, I like NNEDI3 + thin edge1.0 + adaptive sharpen1.5(AB100%+AR).

A set of example:
originalhttp://i.imgur.com/D2y3ULU.png
NNEDI3 64http://i.imgur.com/obCswUn.jpg
NGU highhttp://i.imgur.com/GXZB2M7.jpg
NNEDI3 64+TE1.0+AS1.5 http://i.imgur.com/bRXAoKr.jpg

Last edited by Neet009; 21st November 2016 at 18:04.
Neet009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.