madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[kasper93]

I take a look at the screenshots posted in this thread and I think Build 7 looks best. I personally would go only with that option. No need for lower noise option it's already low... But if you really want it build 10 and 9 is fine. (In fact I can't see the difference between those, but again I'm looking at the screenshots)

Bah, no matter what content I try - I keep on coming back to DirectCompute testbuild 3 because it just makes the picture really sharp, even though I own an LCD, which produces a sharp image anyway. I also get ramp banding, so it would seem I could benefit from something like #7, but I don't like it one bit...

All these super-contrast zoomed-in tests are not very representative of the overall perceptions from HD video playback. Even when it comes to image doubling and etc. - sharpness outweighs smoothness.

[har3inger]

I have a problem with error diffusion and nnedi3 on ATI 13.12, 8870m and intel 4000 switchable graphics, win 8.0.

Anything related to OpenCL (nnedi, the old ED) caused my computer to immediately bsod. With the new test builds, this is still the case.

Now, with direct compute ED, I get a black screen with audio when I turn it on. This is similar to what happens when I check "use separate device for presentation". For now, I have no idea why.

Running opencl or directcompute benchmarks shows that both are at least working on the 8870, even though GPU-z says that opencl, and not directcompute is installed for the discreet gpu. (I'm guessing GPU-z is just wrong here).

Are there any tips for how I should begin troubleshooting the problem? I could live without nnedi since I usually watch 1080p content at native, but the error diffusion is intriguing, especially since I have so much horsepower at hand.

[Asmodian]

Originally Posted by XMonarchY

All these super-contrast zoomed-in tests are not very representative of the overall perceptions from HD video playback. Even when it comes to image doubling and etc. - sharpness outweighs smoothness.

I really like the sharpness of the new NNEDI3 options but I cannot say that I agree sharpness outweighs smoothness all the time. I like all the ED builds that offer lowish noise - and I have a lot of trouble telling them apart with "real" content even from two feet away (27" 2560x1440 glossy IPS).

Originally Posted by har3inger

Are there any tips for how I should begin troubleshooting the problem? I could live without nnedi since I usually watch 1080p content at native, but the error diffusion is intriguing, especially since I have so much horsepower at hand.

I do not believe NNEDI will be usable on a HD8870M (a 25% declocked HD7770) even if you do get it to work, while not a bad card it isn't what I would call fast.

It sounds like directcompute isn't working correctly on your system and that is what is used by ED dither now.

[huhn]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

I really like the sharpness of the new NNEDI3 options but I cannot say that I agree sharpness outweighs smoothness all the time. I like all the ED builds that offer lowish noise - and I have a lot of trouble telling them apart with "real" content even from two feet away (27" 2560x1440 glossy IPS).

i just tried DC 3 and took a screen with random dither, ED and no dither
the difference between no dither and dither is totally obvious because the black level is risen and less bending when dithering is used but i can't see a real difference between ED and random dithering on a real source.

and i looked at it from 20-60 cm on a 42° calibrated lcd tv screen.

ed dither compare: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/61913

screen without dither with really deep black: http://abload.de/img/nodithershin5gkij.png

is the content to see this so special or my eyes/tv are terrible bad... ?

[turbojet]

huhn: I don't notice much either between ED and RD. ED is a little sharper and a little less noise but it's very costly. It's only usable for me (650) on a few things so I don't even use it. A very long profile could rule out 60p, 1080i to ivtc, <960p (nnedi3) which leaves maybe 10% of videos, figured it wasn't worth the time to make the profile.

This isn't saying its bad, just its price/performance ratio is very high with current gpus.

[cyberbeing]

Originally Posted by huhn

ed dither compare: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/61913
is the content to see this so special or my eyes/tv are terrible bad... ?

Not a great comparison, since your source shows signs of being dithered with error diffusion before encoding, most likely to 10bit. The most obvious effects which can be seen by madVR dithering are on those left three archways. With madVR error diffusion they appear smoother with a checkerboard pattern. With madVR random dither they are noisy.

[huhn]

Originally Posted by cyberbeing

Not a great comparison, since your source shows signs of being dithered with error diffusion before encoding, most likely to 10bit. The most obvious effects which can be seen by madVR dithering are on those left three archways. With madVR error diffusion they appear smoother with a checkerboard pattern. With madVR random dither they are noisy.

maybe... but from normal viewing conditions not really? i have to say it's not zero but nearly nothing.
this is a 8 bit untouched blu ray, so this is what we get from the disc.

of cause i don't know what the studio did to it.

[cyberbeing]

Originally Posted by huhn

maybe... but from normal viewing conditions not really? i have to say it's not zero but nearly nothing.
this is a 8 bit untouched blu ray, so this is what we get from the disc.

of cause i don't know what the studio did to it.

Ah, okay. Well it either had to be have an insane bitrate with 8bit (like a Blu-ray) or with 10bit (re-encoded with filtering) to retain dithering patterns after encoding like that.

Honestly, in your example I prefer 'random dither'. As you'll find from me earlier in the thread, I was the first to express displeasure with the quality of that original Direct Compute Build 3 you used, and didn't think it was worth the performance cost. madshi listened and now we have things like the ED7 build which are quite nice. Either way the entire point of dithering is to do its job, but be subtle enough to be undetectable. Error diffusion algorithms also have the benefit of offering more accurate representations of the source. The current debates back and forth are nitpicking objective differences through exaggerated examples as well as subjective quality on various display setups.

Like many settings in madVR, it's about squeezing another 1% of quality out of a source at orders of magnitude higher performance costs. Add up enough of those 1% quality increases, and you may begin to notice significant differences compared to other video renderers. The availability of such settings are what makes madVR unique, but if they are worth it is up to each individual person to decide. In most cases GPU power is the limiting factor here.

[ryrynz]

Find these builds aren't working on my HD3000, the video just launches paused and when I close MPC it crashes. 0.84.4 and The Directcompute 3 build work fine. This is with ED even set to random.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Matthias Hutter

On 0.87.4:
Playing SD content at 200% (720x406 -> 1440x812)

Case 1: Using NNEDI3 color upscaling
* observed result: video plays, but missing chroma (green screen).

Case 2: Using NNEDI3 image doubling
* observed result: video freezes, 0% GPU usage, GPU down-clocks into fallback mode

setup: Quadro K2000M (~660M)
driver version 320.27 WHQL/ 331.82 WHQL

(So probably the same D3D9 interop issue, but downgrading drivers doesn't solve the issue for those GPUs)

Don't know why older drivers don't work for you. I guess we can only hope for a driver fix from NVidia.

Originally Posted by leeperry

You prefer 10, fine! You're the boss too

No, I don't prefer 10 over 7. I prefer 10 over 2 and 4, if we have to have a low-noise alternative. I like 7 and 5 most.

Originally Posted by Shiandow

The algorithm I gave is supposed to only use the last 32bits of the answer of the multiplication

You're right, thanks, I misinterpreted the way the algorithm work. Will switch to your suggested algorithm.

I still believe the algorithm I was using was alright, though, although limited to only 16bit, so not as good as yours.

Originally Posted by cyberbeing

Random vs non-random is more than a technicality. All of the non-random ones are essentially zero noise, and their end-to-end seamless patterns is their defining look.

I agree so far.

Originally Posted by cyberbeing

ED9 & ED10, fall into the same noise level category as ED3.

I don't agree with this. From all I can see, ED9&10 have similar noise levels to ED2, and lower noise levels than ED3. This is not visible in all test images, though. If you look at only one test image, ED3 can sometimes appear to have noise levels as low as the non-random algorithms, but on some gray levels it's higher. From all the test images I've seen, ED9&10 have very similar noise levels to ED2. So IMHO ED9&10 are valid competitors to ED2, while ED3 has slightly higher noise levels (but lower than ED5&7).

Originally Posted by cyberbeing

If I was really going to narrow it down, my top 3 combinations for a medium noise and low noise category would be the following from best to worse:

Medium Noise: ED7 | Low Noise: ED3

Medium Noise: ED7 | Low Noise: ED9

Medium Noise: ED7 | Low Noise: ED2

I can agree with this. However, ED3 is almost identical to the old test build 5 which many users rejected, due to having higher noise levels than the old test build 3. I fear ED3 is not a valid choice for the Low Noise algorithm cause the noise level is still a bit too high, compared to ED2&9&10.

Originally Posted by Werewolfy

My favorite one is 7 too and I don't mind if you only use this one because I don't like low noise algorithm, it seems there is more banding when there is less noise and the picture appears to be less sharp. But if I had to pick one between 2 and 10, I'd choose 10.

K, thx.

Originally Posted by noee

madshi, I (and my 7 year old with amazing eyes and ears) prefer 10 and then 7 in my viewing scenario. I tested (for what seems now like days on my older 1080p IPS panel) with *only* SD and 1080p24 material (no test patterns at all), so take it fwiw. I now get what leeperry and others say about "pop effect" now that I have spent so much time rolling these things.

Thanks, appreciated!

Originally Posted by kasper93

I take a look at the screenshots posted in this thread and I think Build 7 looks best. I personally would go only with that option. No need for lower noise option it's already low... But if you really want it build 10 and 9 is fine. (In fact I can't see the difference between those, but again I'm looking at the screenshots)

Thx.

Originally Posted by XMonarchY

Bah, no matter what content I try - I keep on coming back to DirectCompute testbuild 3

The old test build 3 is almost identical to the new build 4. I believe the new build 2 is an improvement over both. And I believe the new builds 9&10 are another improvement over the new build 2. Of course that's only my personal opinion, but the majority of users seems to agree with that.

Originally Posted by har3inger

I have a problem with error diffusion and nnedi3 on ATI 13.12, 8870m and intel 4000 switchable graphics, win 8.0.

Anything related to OpenCL (nnedi, the old ED) caused my computer to immediately bsod.

Ouch.

Originally Posted by har3inger

Now, with direct compute ED, I get a black screen with audio when I turn it on. This is similar to what happens when I check "use separate device for presentation". For now, I have no idea why.

Running opencl or directcompute benchmarks shows that both are at least working on the 8870, even though GPU-z says that opencl, and not directcompute is installed for the discreet gpu. (I'm guessing GPU-z is just wrong here).

Are there any tips for how I should begin troubleshooting the problem? I could live without nnedi since I usually watch 1080p content at native, but the error diffusion is intriguing, especially since I have so much horsepower at hand.

I've got no idea, to be honest. My recommendation would be to fully uninstall &clean the AMD drivers, and then reinstall the latest drivers, just to be safe. Other than that I don't know what to suggest. Maybe a full Windows reinstall, but something like that is very time consuming, and there's no guarantee that it will work afterwards...

-------

I'm sorry about this, but could we please do one final test for the higher noise algorithm? I've implemented Shiandow's improved random number algorithm. And instead of just builds 5 and 7 there are now 2 variants of both:

- Floyd-Steinberg, 1.0 weight sum (old build 5)
- Floyd-Steinberg, 0.97 weight sum
- Filter-Lite, 1.0 weight sum
- Filter-Lite, 0.97 weight sum (old build 7)

Which of those 4 do you prefer? It's perfectly alright to say that they all look the same to you. If that's what your eyes tell you, please do say that. The number of "looks the same" votes is helpful, too. Personally, I don't see much difference between those 4. I'm sure leeperry will pick one algorithm to be the best, of course... If the rest of you don't care, I've no problem letting him choose. But if there are multiple votes with clear favorites, I'll go with the majority vote.

http://madshi.net/madVRednoisy.rar

[cyberbeing]

Originally Posted by madshi

I don't agree with this. From all I can see, ED9&10 have similar noise levels to ED2, and lower noise levels than ED3. This is not visible in all test images, though. If you look at only one test image, ED3 can sometimes appear to have noise levels as low as the non-random algorithms, but on some gray levels it's higher. From all the test images I've seen, ED9&10 have very similar noise levels to ED2. So IMHO ED9&10 are valid competitors to ED2, while ED3 has slightly higher noise levels (but lower than ED5&7).

I probably should have been a bit more clear. ED3 does have more noise than ED9 & ED10, but the type of noise, error, and patterns it produces are in the same category. The non-random ED2 is in a different category, and ED5 & ED7 are together in the same category. You can see what I mean by this if you boost the saturation way up on a gray bars pattern.

Edit: And yes, I realize that earlier you said you disliked classifying them like this, but hopefully these images exhibit why I do so...
__
ED2 (Noiseless Patterns)


ED3 | ED9 | ED10 (Random Patterns)


ED5 | ED7 (Patternless)

Originally Posted by madshi

I can agree with this. However, ED3 is almost identical to the old test build 5 which many users rejected, due to having higher noise levels than the old test build 3. I fear ED3 is not a valid choice for the Low Noise algorithm cause the noise level is still a bit too high, compared to ED2&9&10.

Yeah I know, though it seems through your blind testing a few more people began to like ED3 (old test build 5). Overall I do agree that it would probably make sense to go with something even lower noise than ED3 for the low noise option. You should probably weight your choice for the low noise option from the opinions of those who preferred the old directcompute test build 3, which was a noiseless non-random build. It's ultimately up to them how much randomness & noise they find acceptable.

[Shiandow]

Originally Posted by madshi

You're right, thanks, I misinterpreted the way the algorithm work. Will switch to your suggested algorithm.

I still believe the algorithm I was using was alright, though, although limited to only 16bit, so not as good as yours.

After reading up on Multiply-with-carry random number generators I also believe that your original algorithm should be alright. The main advantages of the algorithm I provided is that it has a slightly larger period (4294967296 instead of 589823999) and it also works if the seed is 0.

But I now no longer have an explanation for why the algorithm you used made the output periodic. It would be nice if it's solved now but I have no idea why.

[leeperry]

Originally Posted by madshi

The old test build 3 is almost identical to the new build 4.

Interesting, I rolled 4 and 5 quite extensively but ultimately 5 won by quite a long run.

Originally Posted by madshi

I'm sure leeperry will pick one algorithm to be the best, of course... If the rest of you don't care, I've no problem letting him choose. But if there are multiple votes with clear favorites, I'll go with the majority vote.

Ah, lemme see

I might just do it the russian way and bribe everybody to sing along, you guys take paypal?

[Ver Greeneyes]

@madshi, I was wondering about some things regarding dithering and monitor calibration.

One of the things that caught my eye when this discussion first started is that 6233638 reported being able to better differentiate between patches of similar brightness, and I was wondering if this might improve my dispcal calibration near black. With that in mind, I have the following questions:
1) My calibrator takes the average of a group of pixels, so it probably won't care about worm patterns - but if the pattern is the same every frame, could the average vary between one location and the next?
2) For the purposes of differentiating between patches, you'd want the least amount of randomness possible right? But I'd also probably want to measure under the same conditions as I use for viewing later on. Assuming we end up with two algorithms to choose from in the end, should I calibrate with the one I prefer or with the one that has the lowest amount of noise? (assuming they're not one and the same)
3) Very near black, is it possible that the dithering will be clipped (causing a higher average)? If so, would this be worse for an algorithm with more randomness?

Note that these questions are for the purposes of calibration, not viewing. I want calibration to leave my black level as low as possible while still accurately adjusting dark shades of grey (relative to the black and white level).

[leeperry]

BTW, would anyone know about a dead silent graphic card that's got the muscles for serious NNEDI goodness?

I got this o/c 7850 for fairly cheap but its thermal paste is prolly junk as heat instantly raises, it's no DirectCU and its fans get incredibly loud >20%...I guess I could replace the paste and slap an 800rpm 120mm onto the card but then I could kiss the 2 years warranty goodbye and it gave me the dreaded 7850 black screen on XP a few times.

Ideally I'd like to get an Asus DirectCU 660, but apparently nvidia missed the NNEDI train and I especially don't want a Sapphire. I guess a DIY kludge is in good order.

[James Freeman]

I probably said it already, but any opinion is a good opinion.

I can see clear difference between Random Dithering vs Error Diffusion.
I can't see the difference between any of the ED versions.

*I'm on a 27" HD Monitor, maybe on projector or larger sized TV's the difference is more noticeable from closer range.
*Calibrated monitor with i1 Display Pro,


What will be chosen is fine by me.
Thanks.

[6233638]

Originally Posted by Ver Greeneyes

One of the things that caught my eye when this discussion first started is that 6233638 reported being able to better differentiate between patches of similar brightness, and I was wondering if this might improve my dispcal calibration near black.

Sorry, this was an error on my part.

[YxP]

Originally Posted by leeperry

BTW, would anyone know about a dead silent graphic card that's got the muscles for serious NNEDI goodness?

I got a basic 1GB model of 7850 and it can't do image doubling, so for "serious" NNEDI you probably need to go higher than that card.

[cyberbeing]

Originally Posted by madshi

- Floyd-Steinberg, 1.0 weight sum (old build 5)
- Floyd-Steinberg, 0.97 weight sum
- Filter-Lite, 1.0 weight sum
- Filter-Lite, 0.97 weight sum (old build 7)

Which of those 4 do you prefer? It's perfectly alright to say that they all look the same to you. If that's what your eyes tell you, please do say that.

That new random algorithm changed the behavior of these quite a bit.

My initial impressions via test patterns:

First place "madVR - noisy 2". (This build appears to have the most uniform noise distribution)

Second Place "madVR ED7"

Third Place "madVR ED5"

Forth place "madVR - noisy 4.

Fifth place "madVR - noisy 3"

Sixth place "madVR - noisy 1"


I'll need to do some more tests later, but so far "noisy 2" seems to be my preferred choice.