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.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Announcements and Chat > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 16th November 2017, 16:42   #61  |  Link
zub35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
madshi Try it, I can make mistakes with the choice of filters. File to download in the post above.
p.s. Private Messages

UPD: From a technical, it is better to create a new neural network, comparing frame by frame the source file with compression (several thousand variations) for restoration / removal of artifacts (given the different codecs and settings)
And then, to apply this neural network to upscale. Either combine them into one big neural network.

Based on the above. Provided that a stable algorithm. Add to the container (mkv) of the video file (or individual *.neural file), the minimum data needed for fast/realtime work of the neural network on the players.
At the same time, don't even have to create a new video standard, and apply them to the existing AVC or HEVC. Accordingly, retaining the ability to play videos where there is no power to the neural network.

Last edited by zub35; 16th November 2017 at 18:32.
zub35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2017, 22:34   #62  |  Link
ABDO
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
I find NGU-AA to be not only more detailed, but it also has less ringing artifacts and looks more natural at the same time! I guess I should ask (in the madVR thread) once more if NNEDI3 is still needed/useful.
for me i never used NNEDI3 since NGU-AA come to madvr, NGU-AA looks more natural as you said and much faster in the same time
Quote:
Would be interesting to see how it would handle typical movie sources. Usually these types of algos are too slow for real time use, though.
yeah, it is too slow for real time use,i will traning the network soon if author did not put the pretraning moudel and i wish it give good result in typical movie sources.

Quote:
How does it compare to madVR's "remove compression artifacts"?
it is equal to madvr RCA-6 Values, but madvr also much much faster, i will up some comparison image soon.
edit:
All Images upscaling with NGU Sharp VH

jpg Source
https://postimg.org/image/pcaefvqfd/

madvr RCA6-high 1080p
https://postimg.org/image/qtvurl0cp/

letsenhance-anti-jpeg source
https://postimg.org/image/qv5skkewp/

letsenhance-anti-jpeg 1080p
https://postimg.org/image/ay70o19pl/

i think while (RCA*6) totally treat jpeg artifacts as efficiency as (letsenhance-anti-jpeg), but it is clear that (madvr-RCA) excel in save more sharpen and texture detail ��, With Note that (madvr- RCA) give this result in real time, though for now definitely (madvr-RCA) does best job than (letsenhance-anti-jpeg) since we do not have any control over letsenhance-anti-jpeg strength.(sorry if i miss understand your question right)

Last edited by ABDO; 17th November 2017 at 03:00.
ABDO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2017, 14:43   #63  |  Link
zub35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
ABDO He was referring to - apply filters to remove artifacts from compressed video of my example crf=25 and upload them in a png and jpeg and compare them with the results without filters removal of artifacts.

But I think (not tested) that removing artifacts, will not allow the algorithm to recover the details. Since the compress-artifacts contains information about the original content.
The presence of an artifact indicates that this place was something else, unlike those places where artifacts are not.

Last edited by zub35; 17th November 2017 at 14:47.
zub35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2017, 16:45   #64  |  Link
ABDO
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by zub35 View Post
ABDO He was referring to - apply filters to remove artifacts from compressed video of my example crf=25 and upload them in a png and jpeg and compare them with the results without filters removal of artifacts.
i am sorry, i realy did not understand the question right.
Quote:
But I think (not tested) that removing artifacts, will not allow the algorithm to recover the details. Since the compress-artifacts contains information about the original content.
The presence of an artifact indicates that this place was something else, unlike those places where artifacts are not.
yeah, Unfortunately i am not sure, as i not technical man or programer, but as you said the technology is extremely promising, so i think the future will bring an Improvements to it.
ABDO is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.