Speed and compression of different denoisers

N_F · 15th April 2003, 23:47

These are some tests I recently ran on different denoisers I figured I'd share.

Noisy clip: 4000 frames of Sex and the City (NTSC, 4:3)
Clean clip: 4000 frames of Fellowship of the Ring (PAL, 16:9 (2.35))

Code:

* = Added on first edit
** = Added on second edit
*** = Last added

Denoiser                     Time              Size

Noisy clip
None                         5:33 (100%)       64,0 (100%)
*Unfilter(-5,-5)             5:33 (100%)       56.0 (88%)
*Undot()        ´            5:35 (101%)       61.4 (96%)
temporalsoften(2,3,3,2,6)    5:47 (104%)       62,5 (98%)
Mergechroma(blur(1.3))       5:48 (105%)       61,4 (96%)   
**DNR2()                     5:57 (108%)       62.0 (97%)
*TemporalCleaner()           5:57 (108%)       62.0 (97%)   
temporalsoften(3,5,5,2,10)   5:59 (108%)       59,8 (93%)
**STMedianFilter(8,15,4,7)   6:04 (109%)       60.3 (94%)
temporalsoften(4,8,8,2,10)   6:04 (109%)       58,0 (91%)
*Deen()                      6:08 (111%)       53.3 (83%)
fluxsmooth()                 6:11 (111%)       57,4 (90%)
convolution3d("moviehq")     6:14 (112%)       62,2 (97%)
convolution3d("movielq")     6:14 (112%)       59,7 (93%)
**Peachsmoother()            6:28 (117%)       53.7 (84%)
SpaceDust()                  6:46 (122%)       54,0 (84%)
****convolution3d("vhsbq")   7:05 (128%)       57.6 (90%)
**SmoothHiQ(7,20,25,230,5)  16:54 (305%)       50.3 (79%)
FaeryDust()                 26:17 (474%)       55,6 (87%)
PixieDust()                 26:36 (479%)       48,7 (76%)
GoldDust()                  26:49 (483%)       40,4 (63%)

 
Clean clip
None                         3:20 (100%)       26,3 (100%)
*Undot()                     3:21 (101%)       25.8 (98%)
*Unfilter(-5,-5)             3:22 (101%)       23.5 (89%)
Mergechroma(blur(1.3))       3:30 (105%)       25,9 (98%)
**DNR2()                     3:31 (106%)       26.7 (102%) (!?)
temporalsoften(2,3,3,2,6)    3:34 (107%)       25,5 (97%)
temporalsoften(3,5,5,2,10)   3:42 (111%)       25,1 (95%)
**STMedianFilter(8,15,4,7)   3:43 (112%)       26.2 (100%)
*TemporalCleaner()           3:45 (113%)       25.9 (98%)
temporalsoften(4,8,8,2,10)   3:47 (114%)       24,9 (95%)
fluxsmooth()                 3:50 (115%)       24,2 (92%)
*Deen()                      3:56 (118%)       22.4 (85%)
convolution3d(movielq)       3:58 (119%)       25,0 (95%)
convolution3d(moviehq)       3:59 (120%)       25,6 (97%)
**Peachsmoother()            4:03 (122%)       24.3 (92%)
SpaceDust()                  4:07 (124%)       22,2 (84%)
***convolution3d("vhsbq")    4:23 (132%)       25.1 (95%)
FaeryDust()                 12:14 (367%)       23,9 (91%)
GoldDust()                  12:45 (383%)       20,5 (78%)
PixieDust()                 12:48 (384%)       22,3 (85%)
**SmoothHiQ(7,20,25,230,5)  14:10 (425%)       20.6 (78%)

If there are any conclusions to be drawn someone else will have to draw them for now. I’m having a cold at the moment and I’ve been feeling dizzy all day; my mind is not at its sharpest.

One thing to note though is Convolution3D. It seems to be a common misconception that it’s very slow, but as you can see it’s not.

All tests were run with Avisynth 2.51. Dust with the help of Warpsharp’s LoadPluginEx()

Also, if you’re missing a filter leave its name and setting here and I’ll add it

* Take note of Undot and Unfilter (both by Tom Barry IIRC). How is it possible they hardly affect encoding speed, yet in Unfilter's case (and to much lesser extent Undot) changes the picture's size greatly? It would seem there are hardly any extra calculations done or something like that

Not that I'm complaining...

irasnyd · 16th April 2003, 00:15

If you've got the time, two more I suggest are deen and undot.

I just use them with the defaults:
deen()
undot()

irasnyd

manono · 16th April 2003, 10:58

Hi-

Nice test N_F. I'd like to see how TemporalCleaner() compares to the rest of them.

frodoontop · 16th April 2003, 11:38

This test is really helpfull. If you have some time, please look at Unfilter(-5,-5). I use it a lot.

Valky · 16th April 2003, 14:46

My conclusion is that there is no point using Fairydust anymore on noisy source, cause it takes about same time than Pixiedust().
Or then this might be caused by Warpsharp’s LoadPluginEx().

Prettz · 16th April 2003, 15:30

Nice test, but can you tell us your system specs too, possibly to compare performance with different CPUs (i.e. athlon vs P4)?

PerCIVaL · 16th April 2003, 17:06

how about smart smoother HQ ? I use it a lot in virtualdub. you should be able to load it into avs.

Also, I find compression important but quality more so. Smart smoother gives me very good results. So does convolution3d.

N_F · 16th April 2003, 23:31

I'll try to add all the filters you've mentioned within a day or two.

@PerCIVaL - I haven't had any success with sshq in avisynth yet, but I'll see if I can get it to work.

@Prettz - Well my basic specs are Athlon 1300, 256 MB mem, Win XP. But I don't think it'll do you any good, there are so many other things that makes a difference

trbarry · 16th April 2003, 23:53

If you are doing an exhaustive set of tests you might also want to include STMedianFilter(8,15,4,7). ( www.trbarry.com/Readme_STMedianFilter.txt )

- Tom

JuanC · 17th April 2003, 00:06

How about including PeachSmoother ?

:J

12monkeys · 17th April 2003, 11:25

Another vote for PeachSmoother, I use it all the time

17th April 2003, 12:19

ehmmm...

how about quality ? a psnr confrontation could be usefull
you can use psnr4avi ( http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/_XOO...e/psnr4avi.exe )

Thanks

Andres

sh0dan · 17th April 2003, 15:13

PSNR doesn't say anything about quality - just as little as compression does. A PSNR test would IMO be a waste of time.

DDogg · 17th April 2003, 15:25

N_F, even if it would be a totally subjective judgement, I wonder if you might consider assigning a "quality" factor and then plot a graph in Excel so that time, compression and quality (again, I know that is voodoo) could indicate the general trending of the better combinations?

Probably a real pain in the backside for you

Piper · 17th April 2003, 16:13

While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out in: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44335

I've been toying with this filter over the past few days, comparing it with Pixiedust. I'm quite impressed - the results between the two filters are very close to each other with DNR2 preserving more detail (IMHO) while running much faster.

N_F · 18th April 2003, 00:11

@DDogg - I've been thinking about that, but thing is, I have ~30 clips, and it's damn hard seeing any difference without spending a considereble amount of time comparing them. Still, I'll think about it.

Could anyone tell me what sshiq version to use? There seems to be like 10 different versions made by 10 different people available. I've found one by Sh0dan, but it works in RGB IIRC and involves some kind of vdf inport.

^^-+I4004+-^^ · 18th April 2003, 01:08

numbers really mean less for this kinda comparisson,and for images,you would have to include at least few settings for each filter (yes,peachsmoother and grapesmoother too...hehe)
so it's a tremendous job
for example;there's a source video screenshot,spliced with screenshot after filtering (split screen),this is cropped heavily,but the frame is picked so it had details and some uniform parts too....(this image portion is retained after cropping too)
for every filter/settings there's one such jpeg (very small)....
(i think somone already did such test..with few denoisers)
but as i said too many filters,combinations,numerus settings for each...tough job

TNM · 18th April 2003, 09:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Piper
While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out in: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44335

I've been toying with this filter over the past few days, comparing it with Pixiedust. I'm quite impressed - the results between the two filters are very close to each other with DNR2 preserving more detail (IMHO) while running much faster.

Can u pls post which setting of this filter can give close result to pixiedust?

FuPP · 18th April 2003, 10:59

"(i think somone already did such test..with few denoisers)"

It was me

but pictures showed were not always very relevant (mostly due to a lack of time). Sorry...

"While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out"

Yes, I'd like to play a little bit with that one. Does anybody have some sample scripts with that filter, to use them as a starting point (and then play with parameters)?

Regards,
FuPP

PerCIVaL · 18th April 2003, 16:55

@N_F

you should be able to get the latest version here:
http://shelob.mordor.net/dgraft/hiq/smoothhiq.html

As for vdf import, IIRC there is no avisynth version of the filter yet. The page above has detailed instructions how to correctly import the vdf though.

Thanks for the great tests btw!

17th April 2003, 15:13	#13 \| Link
sh0dan Retired AviSynth Dev ;) Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Dark Side of the Moon Posts: 3,480	PSNR doesn't say anything about quality - just as little as compression does. A PSNR test would IMO be a waste of time. __________________ Regards, sh0dan // VoxPod

18th April 2003, 10:59	#19 \| Link
FuPP TotalEclipseOfTheBrain Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 347	"(i think somone already did such test..with few denoisers)" It was me but pictures showed were not always very relevant (mostly due to a lack of time). Sorry... "While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out" Yes, I'd like to play a little bit with that one. Does anybody have some sample scripts with that filter, to use them as a starting point (and then play with parameters)? Regards, FuPP Last edited by FuPP; 18th April 2003 at 11:02.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16th April 2003, 00:15	#2 \| Link
irasnyd Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: CA, USA Posts: 45	If you've got the time, two more I suggest are deen and undot. I just use them with the defaults: deen() undot() irasnyd

16th April 2003, 10:58	#3 \| Link
manono Moderator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 7,406	Hi- Nice test N_F. I'd like to see how TemporalCleaner() compares to the rest of them.

16th April 2003, 11:38	#4 \| Link
frodoontop Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 126	This test is really helpfull. If you have some time, please look at Unfilter(-5,-5). I use it a lot.

16th April 2003, 14:46	#5 \| Link
Valky Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 275	My conclusion is that there is no point using Fairydust anymore on noisy source, cause it takes about same time than Pixiedust(). Or then this might be caused by Warpsharp’s LoadPluginEx().

16th April 2003, 15:30	#6 \| Link
Prettz easily bamboozled user Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Atlanta Posts: 373	Nice test, but can you tell us your system specs too, possibly to compare performance with different CPUs (i.e. athlon vs P4)?

16th April 2003, 17:06	#7 \| Link
PerCIVaL Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Netherlands Posts: 32	how about smart smoother HQ ? I use it a lot in virtualdub. you should be able to load it into avs. Also, I find compression important but quality more so. Smart smoother gives me very good results. So does convolution3d.

16th April 2003, 23:31	#8 \| Link
N_F Do you find me... pretty? Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 760	I'll try to add all the filters you've mentioned within a day or two. @PerCIVaL - I haven't had any success with sshq in avisynth yet, but I'll see if I can get it to work. @Prettz - Well my basic specs are Athlon 1300, 256 MB mem, Win XP. But I don't think it'll do you any good, there are so many other things that makes a difference

16th April 2003, 23:53	#9 \| Link
trbarry Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Gainesville FL USA Posts: 2,092	If you are doing an exhaustive set of tests you might also want to include STMedianFilter(8,15,4,7). ( www.trbarry.com/Readme_STMedianFilter.txt ) - Tom

17th April 2003, 00:06	#10 \| Link
JuanC Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 220	How about including PeachSmoother ? :J

17th April 2003, 11:25	#11 \| Link
12monkeys Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 7	Another vote for PeachSmoother, I use it all the time

17th April 2003, 12:19	#12 \| Link
majerle Guest Posts: n/a	ehmmm... how about quality ? a psnr confrontation could be usefull you can use psnr4avi ( http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/_XOO...e/psnr4avi.exe ) Thanks Andres

17th April 2003, 15:25	#14 \| Link
DDogg Retired, but still around Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Lone Star Posts: 3,058	N_F, even if it would be a totally subjective judgement, I wonder if you might consider assigning a "quality" factor and then plot a graph in Excel so that time, compression and quality (again, I know that is voodoo) could indicate the general trending of the better combinations? Probably a real pain in the backside for you

17th April 2003, 16:13	#15 \| Link
Piper Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 196	While we're at it, let's not forget DNR2 as Shayne kindly pointed out in: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44335 I've been toying with this filter over the past few days, comparing it with Pixiedust. I'm quite impressed - the results between the two filters are very close to each other with DNR2 preserving more detail (IMHO) while running much faster.

18th April 2003, 00:11	#16 \| Link
N_F Do you find me... pretty? Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 760	@DDogg - I've been thinking about that, but thing is, I have ~30 clips, and it's damn hard seeing any difference without spending a considereble amount of time comparing them. Still, I'll think about it. Could anyone tell me what sshiq version to use? There seems to be like 10 different versions made by 10 different people available. I've found one by Sh0dan, but it works in RGB IIRC and involves some kind of vdf inport.

18th April 2003, 01:08	#17 \| Link
^^-+I4004+-^^ Banned Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Croatia [local name:Hrvatska] Posts: 551	numbers really mean less for this kinda comparisson,and for images,you would have to include at least few settings for each filter (yes,peachsmoother and grapesmoother too...hehe) so it's a tremendous job for example;there's a source video screenshot,spliced with screenshot after filtering (split screen),this is cropped heavily,but the frame is picked so it had details and some uniform parts too....(this image portion is retained after cropping too) for every filter/settings there's one such jpeg (very small).... (i think somone already did such test..with few denoisers) but as i said too many filters,combinations,numerus settings for each...tough job

18th April 2003, 16:55	#20 \| Link
PerCIVaL Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Netherlands Posts: 32	@N_F you should be able to get the latest version here: http://shelob.mordor.net/dgraft/hiq/smoothhiq.html As for vdf import, IIRC there is no avisynth version of the filter yet. The page above has detailed instructions how to correctly import the vdf though. Thanks for the great tests btw!