madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[michkrol]

Originally Posted by Rinzler

When I use EVR, MPC shows that uses DXVA in status bar.
How do I know that MPC-HC with madVR is using DXVA?

Works the same way here with madVR.
Try checking your decoder's info under the play->filters menu.
Take note, it only shows DXVA when using native, not copy-back/CUVID/QuickSync.
MadVR's own OSD also show this info (CTRL+J to show/hide).

Perhaps try updating MPC-HC? The nightly builds from nightly.mpc-hc.org get the bleeding edge features.

[Rinzler]

It works I guess. One more question. Does it make sense to use madVR if I don't have discrete graphics card? I have Intel i5-3570K with HD Graphics 4000.

[ThurstonX]

Originally Posted by LilScrappy

what is minimum video card from ATI i need to play correctly this jinc 3 AR options ?

Sorry, can't answer for minimum, but I use a 5670 and a 6670 (both 1 GB passive Sapphire versions), and they play most things with Jinc 3 + AR for both chroma and image scaling. You need to think about what you're trying to render. I don't have any 1080p stuff to test with, no 60 fps.

[ThurstonX]

Originally Posted by LilScrappy

ok i test later, what to use for Image Upscaling and Image downscaling ?

Try Jinc 3 + AR for image. If it works, great. I think the consensus for downscaling is Catmull-Rom with AR and "scale in linear light".

[LilScrappy]

i have problem with editing the setting after play video all is good but no have icon to edit,
When restart PC first play i have shans to edit but second play again have this error message, any from here to know how to fix ?

[kasper93]

Originally Posted by Rinzler

When I use EVR, MPC shows that uses DXVA in status bar.

How do I know that MPC-HC with madVR is using DXVA?

DXVA status has been fixed recently in mpc-hc. Use latest nightly

Tapatalk 4 @ GT-I9300

[Rinzler]

I've made couple comparisons and don't see any differences between EVR (custom presenter) and madVR. What am I doing wrong?

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/46979

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/46975

[baii]

Originally Posted by Rinzler

I've made couple comparisons and don't see any differences between EVR (custom presenter) and madVR. What am I doing wrong?

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/46979

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/46975

I think for good source w/o any upscaling, the PQ is really close.

Though for EVR, you don't get options such as smooth motion or color management.

[sebdelsol]

Originally Posted by madshi

Good to know that EVR shows the same problem. That saves me some worry. My suggestion would be to temporarily disable madVR's fullscreen exclusive mode by using madVR's custom interfaces (see developers\interfaces\mvrInterfaces.h). And then to re-enable it once your windows are all fully setup etc. This way you don't have to do weird things to the window size, which might reduce/remove the flickering. Other than that I don't know what to say...

It doesn't work since the IvideoWindow is stuck behind its parent window in windowed fullscreen mode too.
In this case alt+TAB shows the madVR IvideoWindow.

I've stumbled upon another weird thing on my ATI. I've begun to code a more responsive OSD with IOsdServices::OsdSetRenderCallback. It works great.
Yet on this ATI computer, any call using the madVR d3d device fails with D3DERR_INVALIDCALL.
It only works when Exclusive mode is enabled AND "present several frames in advance" is disabled...
I've tried to revert back to older driver with the same result. I just don't know what I'm doing wrong...

[Ver Greeneyes]

Originally Posted by baii

Though for EVR, you don't get options such as smooth motion or color management.

With the (custom presenter) variant of EVR you can enable lcms-based color management, which applies the system-installed ICC profile - something madVR doesn't support as far as I can tell. Of course, madVR has yCMS and 3DLUTs instead - as well as other desirable features.

[Rinzler]

So even if my monitor is calibrated, MPC-HC will ignore this calibration? I need to change some madVR settings or what?

[Ver Greeneyes]

Originally Posted by Rinzler

So even if my monitor is calibrated, MPC-HC will ignore this calibration? I need to change some madVR settings or what?

You should use ArgyllCMS' collink to create a 3DLUT. See e.g. the final steps of the guide in this thread. Note that in ArgyllCMS, 'calibrating' refers to creating a set of three gamma curves for the individual color channels, which is usually loaded into the videoLUT of your GPU, whereas 'profiling' refers to creating an ICC profile from a set of test patch measurements. madVR can take care of applying both via a 3DLUT, though if you use madVR instead of the videoLUT for calibration, other applications will temporarily show up uncalibrated.

[Starks]

What is the bare minimum for madvr?

I have a spare machine with an Intel i945GM. Is Pixel Shader support simply not enough?

[agustin9]

I don't think the 945gm runs madvr, it lacks real pixel shaders. I think it only supports 2.0 and mostly software emulated.

[TheElix]

Nevermind, I'm a donkey.

[James Freeman]

I have tested the Upscaling Algorithms.

I have made few videos of several resolution patterns from:
http://www.belle-nuit.com/test-chart

I captured the screen with CamStudio and a Lossless codec.
After that I have converted the original 4:4:4 videos to other chroma modes, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0, using x264.


Here the fun begins.

For native HD content and HD monitor the Image Upscaling does nothing (obviously).
But for lower resolutions it matters very much (more later).

BUT, Chroma Upscaling is critical both for native HD and lower.
As HD chroma is only half the resolution in each direction (4:2:0) (960x540).
And visibly VERY lossy compared to the original 4:4:4 video.

After several hours of fun I came to the conclusion that Lanczon 3+AR is clear winner for Image & definitely Chroma (you read correctly NOT Jinc3).

Image Upscaling:
For image upscaling I have concluded that I'd rather have a little aliasing instead of lost detail.
Therefor Lanczos 3/4+AR wins here in every resolution especially lower ones like DVD.

Chroma Upscaling:
HD Chroma is "low res" compared to the luma, therefor the upscaling working all the time here, 480 to 1080 (actually 240 to 540).
Winner: Lanczos 3/4+AR

Why?
I have found that Jic3+AR gives me artifacts in HD and lower Chromas, whether Jinc3 (no AR) or Lanczos+AR did not.
And Anti-Ringing IS important, so Jinc without AR is a No-Go.

Don't worry, I am not all words.

Here are some Chroma Upscaling comparison images:

Lanczos3+AR:


Jinc3+AR:



Look at the Red/Cyan steps above and below the number 4.
You can see Jinc+AR has a "Shade" (Its not even in the middle) compared to the even looking Lanczos.
This is in HD chroma (960x540) and NO image scaling at all (1:1 pixel perfect).
Jinc3 without AR has no artifacts, BUT has strong ringing.

Lower res chromas like DVD have even more artifacts with Jinc.


Low-Res upscaling (DVD to HD):

Original resolution of the image I have created is 720x480.
The upscaled images are full size of my 1920x1200 monitor, then cropped.

Original:
* Image resolution is 720x480.



Lanczos3+AR:



Jinc3+AR:




All in all.
Lanczos 3/4 + AR is the winner for me for both Chroma & Image resizing.


EDIT:

I attached a zip file containing three short videos (mkv) that you can play and test Chroma and Resizing Algorithms.

1. DVD Resolution = for Image Upscaling comparison.
2. DVD Chroma 4:2:0 = For Chroma Upscaling comparison.
3. DVD Chroma 4:4:4 = Original Chroma for comparison.


How To:
Pause the video and go crazy with the Upscaling modes.



Edit2:
All three versions 1080p included can be downloaded from here:
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/xdwi..._Test_Patterns

or here:
http://www.4shared.com/folder/zsodQz...Test_Patt.html

[vivan]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

All in all.
Lanczos 3/4 + AR is the winner for me.

You forgot to add "if I'm watching only such test videos"

[leeperry]

Fair enough! Well, J3AR is such a GPU hog on my HD7850 that I'll try this recommendation on live content as it can easily reach +80% load on 30fps 1080p chroma upscale + FRC + custom PS shaders(65% for 24fps)

BTW, PotP's coder has been kind enough to look into a few bugs when using its D3D GUI so soon enough it'll be entirely usable with mVR and that's great news as I've been looking forward to be able to use it without breaking mVR's FSE for a while, all in good time

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by vivan

You forgot to add "if I'm watching only such test videos"

Your absolutely right.

I see NO difference what so ever in real videos.

But hey, the devil is in the details.
and we are using madvr and talking about chromas for a reason.

[6233638]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Image Upscaling:
For image upscaling I have concluded that I'd rather have a little aliasing instead of lost detail.
Therefor Lanczos 3/4+AR wins here in every resolution especially lower ones like DVD.

To each their own. This is the opposite of what I prefer. Aliasing is the first thing that takes me out of the experience. It's a harsh "digital" artifact of poorer scaling algorithms that really stands out.
When you are simply watching a film, a slightly softer image is easily ignored, aliasing is not.

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Lanczos3+AR: http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/s...ps52d2f36e.png
Jinc3+AR: http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/s...ps18d453ad.png

Look at the Red/Cyan steps above the number 4.
You can see Jinc+AR has a "Shade" (Its not even in the middle) compared to the even looking Lanczos.
This is in HD chroma (960x540) and NO image scaling at all (1:1 pixel perfect).
Jinc3 without AR has no artifacts, BUT has strong ringing.

This is very strange, and I wonder if it's something to do with the source. Nothing like that showed up in any of the chroma test patterns or real-world sources I used when testing chroma scaling.
But artificial patterns are not always the best thing to use when testing. If you only looked at a chroma burst pattern, you would conclude that Lanczos 8 with no anti-ringing is the best choice for chroma.
In the real world, there is very little difference - but again, Jinc 3 AR is going to guarantee there is less chance of aliasing than Lanczos 3 AR.

Overall though, when considering image quality and performance, there is basically no reason to use anything more than Bicubic 75+AR for chroma.
There are one or two rare exceptions, but those would look bad with Lanczos 3 AR or Jinc 3 AR too.

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Low-Res upscaling (DVD to HD):

Original resolution of the image I have created is 720x480.
The upscaled images are full size of my 1920x1200 monitor, then cropped.

Original: http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/s...ps8c83824f.png * Image resolution is 720x480.
Lanczos3+AR: http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/s...psbf496d24.png
Jinc3+AR: http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/s...ps2eb881dd.png

All in all.
Lanczos 3/4 + AR is the winner for me.

Here's the issue with those tests: real-world video, especially SD video, does not contain anything nearly as high frequency as your test patterns. The pattern in the middle which shows detail loss, is rarely - if ever - going to turn up with a DVD.
The significant reduction in aliasing on the X, however, is something that has considerable real-world benefits when upscaling video.

When upscaling SD, aliasing, then ringing, are by far the biggest factors for image quality. Most SD sources have been so compressed/filtered that there is very little high frequency detail remaining, just artifacts. In many cases it is actually better for image quality to lose the highest frequency information from the image, because that is typically going to be mosquito noise.
For these reasons, I prefer to use either Jinc 3+AR, or SoftCubic 80 when upscaling SD video.

When upscaling 720p content to 1080p, Lanczos 3 AR is a reasonable choice (aliasing is generally less of a concern) though I still prefer to use Jinc 3+AR. SoftCubic is generally too soft with HD content.

To use an old example:

Originally Posted by 6233638

Soft filters are not necessarily bad for Luma. Unlike image processing where you might be upsampling a high quality photograph, the quality of commercially released DVDs is generally terrible. They have had all the high-frequency detail filtered out of them, and sharpened with very basic techniques that introduce a lot of ringing. Older discs also exhibit a lot of "mosquito" noise.

What I like about softer filters, is that they often blur out this offensive ringing/noise (note: I have no problem with film grain) while retaining most of the actual useful picture information.

This is perhaps going too far in the opposite direction, but SoftCubic 80 compared with Jinc 3 anti-ring:


Source

If you look at the two images, obviously one is a lot softer than the other - but you get over that softness very quickly when viewed on its own, and you are actually watching the content.

There is very little - if any - actual detail lost from using SoftCubic, but there is considerably less ringing and sharpening artifacts - and that's when compared to Jinc 3 AR, not Lanczos 3 AR which looks worse.