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. |
15th June 2015, 13:15 | #31081 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
It's definitely LL that makes contoures look too thick and dark with FS.
not LL: LL: Sample (1 frame): http://www52.zippyshare.com/v/lTUNZizZ/file.html So I vote to make not LL the new default option. In fact, I don't see any reason for having a LL option if it distorts images as shown. LL is devilish. Always, it seems. As for thinning: With low values I don't see any effect (at least no positive). Combined with SuperRes, it can even look worse because it already seems to introduce tiny bits of aliasing which then get stronger. With higher values, this aliasing also becomes visible without SuperRes. So I don't see any point in this parameter, thus I vote to set it to 0 by default and probably even remove this option. Last edited by aufkrawall; 15th June 2015 at 13:23. |
15th June 2015, 13:24 | #31082 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
thanks! Now that is much simpler. i hope this kind of configuration or procedure should be posted on the 1st page. So new users wouldn't have to ask again or search their eye balls out. Just my two cents. |
|
15th June 2015, 13:28 | #31083 | Link | ||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,344
|
Quote:
How do you think we arrived on the decision for LL on at the first place (and incidentally noone objecting)? Because someone thought LL on looked better? Exactly! Quote:
Because if you don't, your in for a world of hurt.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders |
||
15th June 2015, 13:37 | #31084 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I don't know if it's actually comparable, but I'll post an example regarding C-R DS in the next few days (could be a bit time consuming to reproduce) which shows this clearly too. Even if LL can look "better" in some cases, it can be hardly worth it when it totally fails in some other cases (while gamma corrected hardly ever seems to completely fail). |
||
15th June 2015, 13:43 | #31086 | Link | |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,344
|
Quote:
Maybe the same categories apply to FS as well. LL may look better on live-action, but have problems with animation or other content with artificial hard borders (like zoomed macro images).
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders Last edited by nevcairiel; 15th June 2015 at 13:46. |
|
15th June 2015, 13:43 | #31087 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 115
|
For those of us valuing sharpness above all else, all other algorithms seem useless compared to super xbr based on the example pictures. Though to be honest I don't seem to be able to show such differences here on common sources. Do you use it on image upscaling or something, because here I only see a chroma upscaling option for it, for which I always had a hard time seeing differences between algorithms on 1080p sources.
|
15th June 2015, 13:47 | #31088 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
Quote:
Well, then I suppose it might be best if madshi leaves us the option to choose, like with scaling. |
|
15th June 2015, 14:36 | #31089 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 58
|
Quote:
@madshi: FWIW, I just opened the Settings to confirm the above, and sure enough "Double Chroma Resolution" is checked. That must be the new default setting, as I've never checked that option in the past. I think that maybe "Double Luma Resolution" is also getting checked as a new default (both set to "NNEDI3, 16 neurons"), as I'm pretty sure I didn't check double luma on this laptop (it can't handle it). Last edited by ThurstonX; 15th June 2015 at 14:55. |
|
15th June 2015, 16:57 | #31090 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
|
Quote:
and my r9 270 outperforms my gtx 760 when it comes down to madVR. of cause my AMD is in a very much needed PCIe 3.0 system and i know some AMD systems can't do nnedi3 at all but that's rare most people with the same cards have no issue. my r9 270 can do 256 neuron 480p23 to 1080p23 easily my 760 GTX can't do more than 128 neurons in that case. maybe the copyback issue gets out of hand at higher resolutions than 1080p. |
|
15th June 2015, 17:20 | #31091 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 26
|
I know madshi wants some report about FS first, but it will be more practical to me to make an overview of the lasts features.
Finesharp I used it years ago when Didée released it on avisynth after an user of doom9 ask him what was the best sharpener for HD source. So here we have a important point. Finesharp is definitively not an option to considering if we talk about sources < 720p. FS is a factory for aliasing, distorsions, and artifacts. He has to be used only with very HQ content. Linear Light or not, he's too strong for low quality sources, the result is always horrible. At least in my opinion, and my opinion is the only thing i can provide here. Thinning control seems to be the equivalent setting to "xstr" in the Didée's avisynth script. In others words, xstr/thinning is the setting than you absolutely want to turn down the most, unless you're an aliasing fan. Finesharp is a very destructive sharpener, and to be efficient, i think he will be only used with Blu-ray or 1080p content. And even on these types of sources, i think the strength should not exceed 1.2, in upscaling refinement, and no more than 0.7/0.8 in image enhancement. Repair was set at 1.0, and to be honest, i don't know what to think about that. By the fact, i have not succeed to rule if repair fonction is equivalent to the "cstr" factor in the avisynth script. I think is some of, but not completely, cos i suspect the madvr version is quite different in some ways than the original script. For fact, if repair have some strong common point with cstr, so 1.0 seems to be too high for me. LumaSharpen I discovered this sharpener with a previous build of madVR. I think it's an adaptation of a SweetFx option, and i welcome it with a sort of mistrust, because i hate SweetFX :d Anyway, i tried to let him a chance, and after some tests, i have to say he can have some utility, on very HQ content, again. With really moderate settings, and considering is just an eye candy toy, he adds some kind of pop effect wich is not unpleasant. As he active on the luma, he brighter just some objects and pixels in a frame, and in some ways, i like it. Maybe a lead for futures evolutions, add an usharp mask (like Unsharp HQ) to work with luma sharpen will open a new way for those who wants to build a very pop picture. If madshi let Luma Sharpen in madVR, and i'll like he will, this will be an option to hardly considerate. An other opinion is if you're upscaling the content, you should definitively not turn on a sharpener in image enhancement, whatever it is. SuperRes I'm a great fan of the method. I bought it just on the principe. But, as shiandow is currently working at improve it, i don't think it's the right time to forge a definitive opinion about. Super-xbr As i play almost only 1080p content on 3440x1440 monitor and 4K VP, and as i have the rigs to motorize anything, i was a faithful user of NNEDI3 in chroma upscaling and Double resolution. But super-xbr have insinuate the doubt in me. On some aspects, super-xbr outclasses NNEDI. Which are aliasing control, clarity and natural look. But he's beaten by NNEDI3 on cleanliness, ringing control and precision. This is worth for almost all types of content. Then, super-xbr is incredibly less greedy for a result which is different but fairly comparable in terms of quality to NNEDI3, event at 128 or 256 neurons. And more than that, it seems to me than super-xbr produce fantastic result in chroma upsampling. To be more accurate, here are my differents settings, if that can help for anything. 720p content on 1080p TV. - Custom Res at 2560x1440 in Nvidia panel Control (no DSR) - Chroma upscaling : super-xbr (without SuperRes) - Luma/chroma doubling : super-xbr - Upscaling refinement : Super Res (NNEDI3 defaults, 4 passes) 1080p content on 1080p TV - Custom Res at 2560x1440 in Nvidia panel Control (no DSR) - Chroma upscaling : super-xbr (without SuperRes) - Luma/chroma doubling : super-xbr - Upscaling refinement : Super Res (NNEDI3 defaults, 4 passes), FS (strength 0.4, thinning 0.007), LS (strength : 0.25, clamp : 0.045, radius 0.3) - image downscaling : C-R AR LL 1080p content on 3440x1440 monitor - Chroma upscaling : super-xbr (without SuperRes) - Luma/chroma doubling : super-xbr - Upscaling refinement : Super Res (NNEDI3 defaults, 4 passes), FS (strength 0.7, thinning 0.012), LS (strength : 0.35, clamp : 0.45, radius 0.4). - image downscaling : C-R AR LL 1080p content on 4K VP - Chroma upscaling : super-xbr (without SuperRes) - Luma/chroma doubling : NNEDI 64 - Upscaling refinement : Super Res (NNEDI3 defaults, 4 passes), FS (strength 0.9, thinning 0.015), LS (strength : 0.45, clamp : 0.45, radius 0.6). Edit: and for all settings, I refine the image after every ~2X upscaling step and i apply SuperRes first. Last edited by Eyldebrandt; 15th June 2015 at 17:36. |
15th June 2015, 17:20 | #31092 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
Quote:
And yes, small Kepler GPUs can be awfully slow with Compute and often also lack shader power in general compared to GCN Radeons. But Kepler is end of life, it is almost completely replaced by Maxwell GPUs, from low end (which is less low end than some years ago) to high end. And Maxwell often is much faster regarding Compute than Kepler (in some cases even faster than GCN, which is a highly Compute optimized architecture with many crossbars etc.). The pricing is high, but an OCed 970 gives a lot of bang for bucks in madVR, and can be close to completely silent. |
|
15th June 2015, 17:35 | #31093 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
|
Quote:
Quote:
but i will find this out my self soon enough i need a GTX 960 soon anyway. |
||
15th June 2015, 17:53 | #31094 | Link | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
Quote:
GTX 760 is a GK104 with 2 blocks of disabled ALUs/TMUs, and even a GTX 680 was rather infamous for its Compute abilities. Quote:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-01/n...t_gpucomputing (dunno what's wrong there with ComputeMark, probably a bug since 960 should be much faster than the 750 Ti). Quote:
HEVC 10 bit probably won't be important soon. Well, of course with super-xbr, NNEDI3 is often a waste of resources now, so a 960 might be nice as well. Last edited by aufkrawall; 15th June 2015 at 17:55. |
|||
15th June 2015, 18:05 | #31095 | Link |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,344
|
I have been hoping for a GTX 960 Ti, which would fill the quite large performance gap between 960 and 970, and (hopefully) also have full HEVC support ... but so far nothing in sight.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders |
15th June 2015, 18:28 | #31096 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 180
|
the scaling factor profile rule bug is into tracker. In the mean time, any one can suggest a workaround?
All I need is 2 profile, a and b, when the image/video is upscaled ->active profile, not upscaled -> active b. This is essentially for the image enhancement tab~ |
15th June 2015, 18:33 | #31097 | Link | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
|
Quote:
Quote:
760 gtx 128 neurens ~31ms r9 270 256 neurons ~33ms not sure if i should use the computerbase benchmarks for nnedi3 performance. Quote:
and my r9 270 is passive cooled should be easily possible with a 960 GTX too. Quote:
i guess a lot of cards where planned with the same limitation as the 970 which results in a pretty bad reputation for that feature so they are not released anymore. |
||||
15th June 2015, 18:55 | #31098 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
There is already a lot deactivated with GTX 970 GM204 and deactivating ROPs and segmenting VRAM doesn't make always sense. I think it might never have been planned to fill the gap between 960 and 970.
960 is already selling well for a high price and you can still pay even more for a 4GB version. |
15th June 2015, 19:20 | #31099 | Link | |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,344
|
Quote:
If nothing else shows up, I'll probably build a new HTPC with Skylake and a 4GB 960 later this year.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders |
|
15th June 2015, 19:34 | #31100 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
|
Quote:
I was running a Shader in MPC-HC which I forgot I enabled, it did not change the image, just take GPU power which raised my rendering times from 20ms to 40ms. This downclocking (P8 state) of the GPU is intentional, at full throttle of my GTX660 I get around 4ms. Same with CPU, I keep the "Minimum and Maximum processor state" at 0% so that I always get 1600Mhz with my i7. Current test show my system takes around 20W when playing a movie, never needed more than that, plus, it helps to keep the heat and bills down... ahem... back to topic please.
__________________
System: i7 3770K, GTX660, Win7 64bit, Panasonic ST60, Dell U2410. |
||
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|