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. |
14th June 2015, 07:50 | #31001 | Link | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 187
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@iSunrise: I saw your comparison screenshots and I found the LL versions more pleasing. The artefacts which you have highlighted are just too insignificant in my opinion and don’t bother me in any way. You prefer Linear Light being disabled for FineSharp. Apparently, you use dithering algorithms too with Linear Light disabled, as with it enabled you find the images too dark. This may have to do with the calibration state of your display. I can think of two possibilities: either your display is not calibrated and has a weird gamma, or it is calibrated and you are using some custom calibration settings. There are some users who complain about the images being brighter when using LL setting for downscaling. They see this problem for the same reason that their display is not properly calibrated. |
||||
14th June 2015, 09:12 | #31002 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 454
|
For me there are so many different factors involved with these sharpners and scaling that your never going to get one option fits all. What would be really cool is for an option that works as follows. The user first plays/seeks through a video and pauses on any frame they wish. Then with a set key press madvr will display that frame of video using its various available settings (maybe pressing another key to cycle through each). The user can then choose the setting they require and the video will then play back from the start with the new settings applied.
|
14th June 2015, 10:16 | #31003 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 60
|
I didn't test thinning for finesharp, but with the other settings set to that way (mode 3, linear light, etc), I find that (using finesharp as an image enhancement, not upscaling refinement, because it results in aliasing) the strength I prefer depends on the video type (or how much it's upscaled by it seems).
For quadrupling (nnedi3 64 / 32) I prefer a strength of 0. For doubling (nnedi3 64) a strength of 1 seems pretty good. Basically finesharp upscaling refinement (with the default strength there of 2, and ll on, mode 3, etc. And image refined only after upscaling was complete) is what I compared it with (as I found that gives IMO optimal sharpness for any video type with nnedi3 doubling/quadrupling. But has visible aliasing and increased render times). And those strengths for those videos (DVD/720p video) are what gave pretty much the same (minus the aliasing) results with image enhancement only. I also don't see myself ever using this sharpening on a video that doesn't need to be upscaled, so I didn't test anything there... Also, the default chroma supersharp settings can result in horrible artefacts on bright/white backgrounds/colors (with jinc3 AR, nnedi3, and I would imagine any other scaler. This was on a dvd sourced video too, maybe it has something to do with that?). I found that setting it to the "non-double" defaults or just simply turning up the anti-rining setting a bit fixed this. Last edited by Hprd; 14th June 2015 at 10:46. |
14th June 2015, 11:44 | #31005 | Link | |||||||||||||||||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
FWIW, are you testing FineSharp in image enhancements or for upscaling refinement? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think for upscaling refinement thinning might benefit from higher values, compared to image enhancement. At least that's an impression I got, but I'm not sure. Quote:
The "LL off" image seems to brighten up the whiskers of the squirrel, compared to the original image, and it also enlarges the "dot" on the black background right of the right ear. Also if you look at the right ear, it appears to "grow" a little bit, compared to the original image. I don't think that is what a sharpening algorithm should do. If you look at the "LL on" image, a part of the whiskers seems to get more faint, which is bad. However, the size of the "dot" and the whiskers and the right ear etc all seems to stay unchanged. Which to me feels like a more faithful representation of what I would expected from a sharpening of the original image. There are some other images where I've also found that the "LL off" version appears to make things noticeably brighter, while the "LL on" version manages to make things sharper without changing the overall brightness of the image. E.g. compare these three images with a strength of 2.0: http://madshi.net/FineSharpTest1.png http://madshi.net/FineSharpTest2.png http://madshi.net/FineSharpTest3.png When enabling FineSharp with "LL off", you should notice that the image becomes brighter overall, compared to the original image. This does not happen (at least not as much) with "LL on". A sharpener is *not* supposed to change the brightness of the original image, is it? Or what do you say? Yes, I do. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
------- Please everybody, when giving FineSharp feedback, specify whether you've tested FineSharp in image enhancements or in upscaling refinement. And when testing it in upscaling refinement, please also state your image doubling/upscaling algorithm and the upscaling factor. Thanks! |
|||||||||||||||||||
14th June 2015, 12:05 | #31006 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 447
|
I've noticed something interesting about the "how many video frames shall be presented in advance" setting (testing windowed mode, DX11 path): with anything higher than 8, my rendering times seem to go up significantly! I figured the higher the better, since it would have more of a buffer in case of lag spikes, but 10 raises rendering times by about 2ms, and even more with the higher settings. I'm guessing that with my GeForce GTX 580, at least, anything higher than 8 makes it miss some more optimized paths and/or caching. So yeah, I'll be sticking with 8 - haven't noticed any advantage to lower settings, but that might well depend on the hardware
__________________
Test patterns: Grayscale yuv444p16le perceptually spaced gradient v2.1 (8-bit version), Multicolor yuv444p16le perceptually spaced gradient v2.1 (8-bit version) Last edited by Ver Greeneyes; 14th June 2015 at 12:47. |
14th June 2015, 12:39 | #31008 | Link | |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Ouch. Can I have a small sample of that file, so I can test/reproduce it on my PC? Which upscaling/doubling algorithm are you using? LumaSharpen and SuperRes are turned off, right? |
|
14th June 2015, 13:03 | #31009 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 60
|
I was using nnedi3 for doubling and quadrupling (64 and 32 neurons respectively), "CR" with AR and LL for downscaling. Jinc3 AR for image scaling and chroma scaling (with super res at "non-double" defaults as normal defaults there gives artefacts for now). Only finesharp on (either image enhancement, or upscaling refinement, never both).
That aliasing appears ONLY when turning on finesharp for upscaling refinement (super res is cleaner, although still not 100% perfect in this regard either). Repair at 1 helps a little (as it's even worse with lower values), but not that much obviously... For image enhancement it doesn't appear at all regardless of the strength and whatnot it seems. I took out the part I used for the comparisons above: https://www.dropbox.com/s/79kr00hyz1...0Clip.zip?dl=0 Last edited by Hprd; 14th June 2015 at 13:06. |
14th June 2015, 13:52 | #31010 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 13
|
Image enhancement mostly, but its more or less the same for upscaling refinement. For upscaling, at strength 2.4 I do like 0.035 more than 0.02. At lower stregnths I'm not sure. For enhancement I'm not sure at 2.4, and prefer 0.02 at lower.
I think for upscaling refinement I prefer LumaSharpen overall. FineSharp is great to make good (and high-res) sources sharper, but doesnt work that well for more than 2x upscaling, eg. DVDs. |
14th June 2015, 13:53 | #31011 | Link | |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
With a really high quality source, using FineSharp in upscaling refinement produces better image quality than using it in image enhancements. Ok, makes sense. Although I do seem to generally prefer lower strengths and higher thinning for upscaling refinement, compared to image enhancements. |
|
14th June 2015, 15:07 | #31013 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
Sent from my 306SH |
|
14th June 2015, 15:46 | #31014 | Link |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
madVR v0.88.12 released
http://madshi.net/madVR.zip Code:
* added super-xbr image doubling algorithm * added super-xbr chroma upscaling algorithm * added NEDI chroma upscaling algorithm * added workaround for one more cause of queues not filling in D3D11 FSE mode * removed FineSharp "mode", "repair" and "linear light" options * removed SuperRes "error upscaling quality" option * fixed: screenshots didn't always work when using DXVA scaling * fixed: luma quadrupling could introduce greenish tint * fixed: settings dialog required BT.709 3dlut slot to be filled * fixed: auto 3dlut slot switching didn't always work correctly * fixed: double clicking madTPG with D3D11 enabled -> black screen * fixed: custom shader "clock" parameter was not set correctly * fixed: ConfigureDisplayModeChanger(allowResolutionChanges = false) bug Here are some comparison screenshots showing how the latest upscaling/doubling algorithms (including NEDI and super-xbr) compare. All these are *without* any upscaling refinement: clown: bilinear -|- bicubic -|- lanczos4 -|- jinc -|- nedi -|- super-xbr -|- NNEDI3-16 -|- NNEDI3-256 lighthouse: bilinear -|- bicubic -|- lanczos4 -|- jinc -|- nedi -|- super-xbr -|- NNEDI3-16 -|- NNEDI3-256 lighthouse top: bilinear -|- bicubic -|- lanczos4 -|- jinc -|- nedi -|- super-xbr -|- NNEDI3-16 -|- NNEDI3-256 Please make sure you view these at 100% for proper comparison. My first impression: super-xbr seems to better than NNEDI3 with 16 taps at producing aliasing free edges. It's also quite sharp and artifact free. However, NNEDI3 looks more "in focus", all the image features are a bit tighter. So I still prefer the overall "look" that NNEDI3 produces. However, super-xbr seems to be the best bang for the buck right now. It's reasonably fast (a bit slower than Jinc and Nedi, but much faster than NNEDI3-16). Let me know what you think! |
14th June 2015, 16:05 | #31016 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 496
|
@madshi
I have enhanced the squirrel so that hopefully you can see what I mean with heavy artefacts with LL. I just want to make sure we are speaking of the same things. I did enhance both shots with GIMP (input levels set to 0, 2.00, 255) so I basically amplified the medium values for both shots to show you what I mean. Hopefully I can rest my case after this, because if you deny that LL looks a lot worse on the squirrel in the following shots, I will just give up. Because it seems you aren't interested in facts, anymore. You are making changes WAY too fast for anyone to catch up and that saddens me greatly. I am not sure why you suddenly rush things when there wasn't any screenshots from people that still use madVR, apart from maybe TheLion, which I appreciate. Especially since you invested so much time in madVR already that waiting a few more days for others to judge won't hurt anyone. No LL, enhanced and cropped: LL, enhanced and cropped: The samples I provided show the exact same behaviour and the "blackness" that consumes the image more and more if you upscale makes these images a lot worse in general. It's almost like LL crushed black levels. I am very interested in your opinion on this. For the strength values, a good middle-way would probably be 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0. So for people that prefer to oversharpen a lot, 2.0 is good for them, 1.0 is good for a medium sharpener and for low-resolution content, 0.5 is already sharp enough without amplifying compression artefacts too much. I have a hardware-calibrated Eizo that shows perfect levels from 0-255, this is the same monitor that I used when we did the dithering tests and I never changed any settings that could make my results different from others. I now even have it running in perfect 10bit mode (FSE), thanks to you. I even made sure to use the defaults, no change, as expected. If people really want a worse algorithm and don't judge what they see with screenshots (because the eyes cannot judge picture details) all the tests that the majority did are worthless. As harsh as it may sound. You just cannot judge with your eyes alone, plain and simple. It's a combination of eyes, analysis based on some example images and some subjective inputs. Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 16:30. |
14th June 2015, 16:20 | #31017 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
|
@iSunrise
not sure why an amplifications is needed. i see more issue on the left diag part with the white around the black lines which looks way better with linear light but still bad. but the squirrel? on the right has a lot more "ringing" with linear light. but i didn't like finesharp in general i guess that's why. |
14th June 2015, 16:23 | #31018 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 496
|
Quote:
I could do countless other examples and LL would exhibit the same problems. No LL is a lot more natural without artefacts, plain and simple. Still, people prefer LL and I don't get it. And that's at a strength that is already very high (2.0), so that means that no LL could even be cranked up more without showing such nasty artefacts. Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 16:27. |
|
14th June 2015, 16:40 | #31020 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
|
I think that the more contrast the image has (bigger distance between two close shades) the more obvious the ringing is. This is always true with any upscaler.
LL somehow enhances this even further. As I see it, LL is better for natural images with smooth transition between shades (closer shades), and gamma light is better for cartoons or generated test patterns. I may be wrong... I would prefer to keep LL Off and just add sharpness to avoid ringing.
__________________
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 | |
|
|