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 > Hardware & Software > Software players

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 5th February 2017, 04:12   #42261  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelGraves13 View Post
2) Is it possible for Chroma to scale in 1-step like Super-XBR when doubling? Like If I've selected NGU High for Chroma Scaling and selected NGU High for Luma Doubling, to just have the option under it for Chroma Doubling grey out and have it scale in a single step without the need for doing Bicubic 60?
it can't be done. NGU can only do x2 scaling (x4 too but what ever) and not all scaling operation are x2.
and on top of it quadrupling chroma is questionable...

Quote:
NGU-VeryHigh still performs quite slow on my 1080 GTX and drops frames down to 0-2 render queue, so it's still unuseable. Maybe in another 2 years when there's video cards fast enough. Same for Chroma. High works ok, but cuts it pretty close for 24p content. 30p and higher content is not possible with NGU because it can't render fast enough with any current graphics card. I never figured out how to make profiles, so I just make one setting for all content.
my 1060 can do 1080p23 -> 2160p23 NGU very high luma only without problems.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 04:19   #42262  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Which do you prefer?
NICE. The low preset is terrible though IMO, I would remove it as the improvement from low to medium is quite considerable. I need to play with it more to state which I prefer, it's going to take some time..
I still do prefer the slightly softer more natural look of NNEDI3, but a softer downscaler or soften edges 1 might make it comparable.
Any possibility for control of sharpness within the algorithm or do we have to rely on additional resizers and postprocessing?

Last edited by ryrynz; 5th February 2017 at 04:26.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 04:26   #42263  |  Link
AngelGraves13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
my 1060 can do 1080p23 -> 2160p23 NGU very high luma only without problems.
I have a 1440p screen, so it has to scale back down and the render times are about +-35ms, which is far too high for 1080p content, as it can sometimes spike past 42ms, throwing off audio sync.

Guess I'll stick with either Jinc or Super-XBR.

Looking forward to getting that 27 inch 4K HDR monitor this year from Asus

Last edited by AngelGraves13; 5th February 2017 at 04:44.
AngelGraves13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 04:46   #42264  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,976
still no problem for my 1060 and quite some headroom left.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 10:23   #42265  |  Link
Sunset1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 277
Is there a way to set Hotkeys for different profiles?

If there will be a new NGUsmooth variant for lower quality sources, it might make sence to be able to change the profile ota when watching high or low quality material.
__________________
Intel i5 6600, 16 GB DDR4, AMD Vega RX56 8 GB, Windows 10 x64, Kodi DS Player 17.6, MadVR (x64), LAV Filters (x64), XySubfilter .746 (x64)
LG 4K OLED (65C8D), Denon X-4200 AVR, Dali Zensor 5.1 Set
Sunset1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 10:44   #42266  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 9,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset1982 View Post
Is there a way to set Hotkeys for different profiles?
Check the settings of the profile groups, you can assign a keyboard shortcut there.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders

Last edited by nevcairiel; 5th February 2017 at 10:57.
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 11:17   #42267  |  Link
Sunset1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
Check the settings of the profile groups, you can assign a keyboard shortcut there.
ah ok, thx. Is there a madvr key table anywhere, to see what keys are free and which are used?
__________________
Intel i5 6600, 16 GB DDR4, AMD Vega RX56 8 GB, Windows 10 x64, Kodi DS Player 17.6, MadVR (x64), LAV Filters (x64), XySubfilter .746 (x64)
LG 4K OLED (65C8D), Denon X-4200 AVR, Dali Zensor 5.1 Set
Sunset1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 12:07   #42268  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
i think the general lines on NGU pixart low are to thin it get's better with medium but with very high the background lines are really strange/uneven and nnedi3 wins there hands down.
even NGU veryhigh wins there most of the part the line thickness is really good! but there or other obvious issues with NGU very high.
mario him self looks "best with pixart very high. his eyes are to small but compared to super XBR they are pretty good.

i have a huge problem selecting a winner here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
NICE. [...] I need to play with it more to state which I prefer, it's going to take some time..
I still do prefer the slightly softer more natural look of NNEDI3, but a softer downscaler or soften edges 1 might make it comparable.
Any possibility for control of sharpness within the algorithm or do we have to rely on additional resizers and postprocessing?
Have you tried zooming into the images to see the differences more clearly?

For example, here are NNEDI3-256 and NGU pixart med at 300% zoom. Where does NNEDI3 look more natural here? The "M" in "TIME" looks better with NNEDI3-256. In every other part of the image, I personally prefer NGU pixart med. NNEDI3 also has a lot of very noticeable artifacts. And btw, NNEDI3-256 is about 3000% slower compared to NGU pixart med (!!!).

Or let's look at a photo instead of a game screenshot. The low-res photo was downscaled using a box filter so it has more aliasing than usual. Here's again how NNEDI3-256 and NGU pixart med compare.

I suppose I could offer even softer NGU pixart variants, but is it really needed? I posted a pixart image comparison with a very old very aliased game screenshot because that's really the hardest image type to get upscaled nicely. I think with real world images NGU and NNEDI3 look very similar.

Would be great if you could do some real world comparisons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
so my last standing argument is that NGU is "hit or miss". super XBR works with everything.
Are NNEDI3 and NGU pixart "his or miss", too? I think they beat super-xbr pretty much all the time.

I do not want to leave Polaris users behind, though, so I might keep super-xbr for the time being, just because it's probably still noticeably faster than NGU pixart for Polaris users.

For comparison sake, here are the super-xbr 300% Mario zoomed image, and the clown zoomed by super-xbr. Look at the front wheel in the clown image. It's still quite aliased when using super-xbr. Less so with NNEDI3-256, and even less so with NGU pixart med.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
The low preset is terrible though IMO, I would remove it as the improvement from low to medium is quite considerable.
It's true that "medium" is a noticeable improvement over "low", but it's also a bit slower. There may be users whose GPU can perform "low" but not "medium". So why remove "low"? Is it really *that* terrible? If I compare it to NNEDI-16, IMHO NGU pixart "low" competes just fine. Or try comparing "low" to the regular (non-pixart) NGU variant!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 12:07   #42269  |  Link
cork_OS
Registered User
 
cork_OS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Minsk (Blr)
Posts: 146
New NGU med+ is definitely outperform sXBR in terms of quality and could replace it completely. NGU smooth also looks even a bit softer than NNEDI3.
However, right now it's hard to talk about speed because NGU smooth a) doesn't have high mode; b) seems doesn't have 4x mode.
Personally I rarely use NNEDI3 and I have nothing to say in it's favor. But why it's so important to drop out NNEDI3 instead of drop out something like Spline?
Additionally, it's still a big difference in sharpness between sXBR/NNEDI3/NGU smooth and plain NGU. Maybe there is a room for some intermediate NGU variant?
__________________
I'm infected with poor sources.
cork_OS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 12:22   #42270  |  Link
Neo-XP
Registered User
 
Neo-XP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Did you combine the halo removal with NGU upscaling? That's not recommended.
Yes I did. It should be specified somewhere that they don't work well together I think.

I switched to FineDehalo (with aviSynth) to remove ringing and dark halos and the result is amazing with one of these settings (I use low) :

FineDehalo(thmi=128, thlimi=50, thlima=50, contra=1.0) # low
FineDehalo(thmi=128, thlimi=50, thlima=100, contra=1.0) # medium
FineDehalo(thmi=128, thlimi=100, thlima=100, contra=1.0) # high

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Nothing strange about it. We already discussed earlier that I'm using strict downscaling now, which I might change to relaxed in the next official build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
It's actually the downscaling algo, which makes the difference. VeryHigh uses SSIM. Lower versions use strict Bicubic150 which can be a lot softer. See my previous comment on that.
Yes please, change it to relaxed by default or at least give us the choice to use relaxed instead of strict.
As NGU should be used for high quality sources, strict is not good because it removes too many details.
I don't need sharpeners anymore with NGU like it is in v0.91.1, which is a very good thing, because they always add some kind of artifacts as a counterpart.

I hope that the next official build will allow :

- to disable automatic image quadrupling, but still be able to use 2x supersampling
- more chroma doubling algorithms (to replace Bicubic60 AR by Lanczos3 AR)
- to choose the scaling factor at which image doubling is enabled, without having to set profiles
- to use NGU < veryHigh with relaxed AR setting instead of strict
- some tweaks for NGU (sharpen, artifact removal control, etc)
- to test all combinations without limitations and without having to switch versions to compare quality and performance (an expert mode ?)

It seems like you are adapting NGU to be used with all kind of source material, to get kid of all the other doublers. I don't know if it is a good thing or not... but "NGU pixart" looks promising !

Last edited by Neo-XP; 5th February 2017 at 12:41.
Neo-XP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 12:39   #42271  |  Link
cork_OS
Registered User
 
cork_OS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Minsk (Blr)
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
For example, here are NNEDI3-256 and NGU pixart med at 300% zoom. Where does NNEDI3 look more natural here?
Well, 2 5 6 numbers looks a bit better with NNEDI3 at my taste.
__________________
I'm infected with poor sources.
cork_OS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 12:53   #42272  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
It's true that "medium" is a noticeable improvement over "low", but it's also a bit slower. There may be users whose GPU can perform "low" but not "medium". So why remove "low"? Is it really *that* terrible? If I compare it to NNEDI-16, IMHO NGU pixart "low" competes just fine. Or try comparing "low" to the regular (non-pixart) NGU variant!
I haven't compared numbers but wasn't it said that NGU pix is about 3x faster than NNEDI3? I tested on some 640x480 anime and the lines were terribly jagged with the low setting, NNEDI3 16 neurons is far superior in that situation, and that should be the starting point for it. Maybe it's not terrible in certain situations, like the image you posted? This probably shows it in the best light.. It's not good with low res line art. Maybe something closer to medium for the low setting would be better. What sort of performance difference really is there between them? I'm not running 0.90.5 on my GTX 960 so image quality is really the only thing I can look at using integrated graphics.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 13:23   #42273  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
I haven't compared numbers but wasn't it said that NGU pix is about 3x faster than NNEDI3? I tested on some 640x480 anime and the lines were terribly jagged with the low setting, NNEDI3 16 neurons is far superior in that situation, and that should be the starting point for it. Maybe it's not terrible in certain situations, like the image you posted? This probably shows it in the best light.. It's not good with low res line art. Maybe something closer to medium for the low setting would be better. What sort of performance difference really is there between them? I'm not running 0.90.5 on my GTX 960 so image quality is really the only thing I can look at using integrated graphics.
I think NGU pixart medium is about twice as fast as NNEDI3-16. NGU pixart low is maybe 20-30% faster than medium, which is not such a dramatic difference, so maybe I should just drop low.

Can you post a screenshot of the original size anime, so I can compare for myself? How does NGU pixart medium compare to NNEDI3-16 with this image?
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 14:35   #42274  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Have you tried zooming into the images to see the differences more clearly?
i have to zoom in i try to judge these very small images on a UHD screen.[/quote]

Quote:
For example, here are NNEDI3-256 and NGU pixart med at 300% zoom. Where does NNEDI3 look more natural here? The "M" in "TIME" looks better with NNEDI3-256. In every other part of the image, I personally prefer NGU pixart med. NNEDI3 also has a lot of very noticeable artifacts. And btw, NNEDI3-256 is about 3000% slower compared to NGU pixart med (!!!).
my problem is tht NGU pixart looks to thin on some parts compared to other scaler and compared to the source.
on real world images the difference is really small on the images i have tested so far.
speed is hard to judge on a modern GPU that is change the clock all the time.

Quote:
Or let's look at a photo instead of a game screenshot. The low-res photo was downscaled using a box filter so it has more aliasing than usual. Here's again how NNEDI3-256 and NGU pixart med compare.

I suppose I could offer even softer NGU pixart variants, but is it really needed? I posted a pixart image comparison with a very old very aliased game screenshot because that's really the hardest image type to get upscaled nicely. I think with real world images NGU and NNEDI3 look very similar.

Would be great if you could do some real world comparisons.
comes for sure but it needs time. for the time i agree on this.
but i never was a friend of nnedi3 anyway.

Quote:
Are NNEDI3 and NGU pixart "his or miss", too? I think they beat super-xbr pretty much all the time.

I do not want to leave Polaris users behind, though, so I might keep super-xbr for the time being, just because it's probably still noticeably faster than NGU pixart for Polaris users.

For comparison sake, here are the super-xbr 300% Mario zoomed image, and the clown zoomed by super-xbr. Look at the front wheel in the clown image. It's still quite aliased when using super-xbr. Less so with NNEDI3-256, and even less so with NGU pixart med.

It's true that "medium" is a noticeable improvement over "low", but it's also a bit slower. There may be users whose GPU can perform "low" but not "medium". So why remove "low"? Is it really *that* terrible? If I compare it to NNEDI-16, IMHO NGU pixart "low" competes just fine. Or try comparing "low" to the regular (non-pixart) NGU variant!
to be totally honest super XBR looks terrible on mario. his face looks deformed...
the lines are generally way to thick on top of it.
super XBR is bad on the clown too. it is simply not perfect in removing aliasing.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 14:51   #42275  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
my problem is tht NGU pixart looks to thin on some parts compared to other scaler and compared to the source.
on real world images the difference is really small on the images i have tested so far.
speed is hard to judge on a modern GPU that is change the clock all the time.
Thing is, NNEDI3 lines get thinner and thinner, as you increase the neuron count. And my NNEDI3 implementation uses the quite small kernel size of 8x4. I had tried 8x6 and it produced sharper/thinner lines. I wanted to use it, but it had too many artifacts, so I decided to use 8x4. I think if I used 8x6, the look would be nearer to NGU pixart, but with much more artifacts.

I find it hard to decide how thin an upscaled line should really be when upscaling pixel art. We don't have a groundtruth to compare to in this case, so it's a matter of "interpretation" or taste.

I've not really designed NGU pixart to create thin lines, I've tried to create aliased images which have a high-res groundtruth (by using box filter downscaling), and then built NGU pixart by trying to upscale the aliased downscaled images in such a way that they get as near to the original hi-res image as possible. The thin lines are a result of this approach. I think NNEDI3 tries to do the same, but just doesn't reach the same quality level at the small 8x4 kernel size, which is why the NNEDI3 lines are sometimes a bit thicker than those produced by NGU pixart.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 15:05   #42276  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,234
I like the NGU-pixart. I think if you took all aspects of the picture and rated them, NGU-pixart would come out on top even if it may not be the winner for certain aspects.

There is probably a slight sharpness reduction .If you could use the right sharpener after NGU-pixart, and before any other process including downscale, I think this could be overcome. There is the option of adaptive sharpen etc, but that happens after everything else (I believe), and not part of the resize chain. What would it look like if it were done as part of the chain, maybe employing some of the principles used in Didee's SeeSaw avisynth script?
burfadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 15:20   #42277  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,976
pixelart image are perfect images. so we can do some stuff we can't do with other images.

so the NN x2 upscald line thickness is a good indictor for a "neutral" line thickness.
with NGU pixart the upscaled image has still a line thickness of 1 pixel and very small boarder.
the lines on the background hills are to thin. NGU pixart is even changing the boarder size from time to time..
BTW. NGU veryhigh is pretty much perfect 2 pixel lines. ignoring all the other problems.

edit:
it produces some ugly chroma bleeding in the clouds and other white parts:
https://picload.org/image/rocllwow/mariochromaissue.png
i guess it comes from the half pixel shift
nnedi3 has this problem too but way less.

Last edited by huhn; 5th February 2017 at 15:41.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 16:21   #42278  |  Link
citrixscu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelGraves13 View Post
I have a 1440p screen, so it has to scale back down and the render times are about +-35ms, which is far too high for 1080p content, as it can sometimes spike past 42ms, throwing off audio sync.

Guess I'll stick with either Jinc or Super-XBR.

Looking forward to getting that 27 inch 4K HDR monitor this year from Asus
Do you find any perceptable quality differences between using NGU to upscale to 2160 and then another algorithm to get you back to 1440? I am in the same position and tend to alternate back and forth between NGU luma high and Jinc AR. The only real difference I see is the rendering times are quite a bit higher with the NGU method, for valid reasons.
citrixscu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 16:25   #42279  |  Link
Xaurus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
can you post an image of the OSD with nnedi 3 selected?
i should be able to tell you what is going on.

and make sure the driver you are using are not installed by windows.
I am not sure if this was directed at my post, but if it was here's what you asked for.

http://imgur.com/a/Z7oYm

Note that I only run NGU since it was implemented, so I had to adjust the profile temporarily to run NNEDI3 instead.

Also, I only use drivers downloaded from the geforce website. And I uninstall the previous one with DDU.

As you can see from the screenshot, it all looks fine. Those frame drops/repeats was just from me pausing and unpausing. I never got around to find out whether this spike of frame drops would have happened by using NNEDI3 instead. Are you hinting that it is NGU that could be the cultprit?
__________________
SETUP: Win 10, MPC-HC, LAV, MadVR
HARDWARE: Corsair 400Q | Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 | Noctua NH-U9S | SuperMicro X11SSZ-TLN4F | Samsung 2x8GB DDR4 ECC | Samsung 850 EVO 1TB | MSI GTX 1060 | EVGA G2 750
Xaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 16:33   #42280  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,976
wasn't for you and i don't quote a post if it is directly over mine.

looks like it was removed/delete.
but it was a problem with GPU driver and not working nnedi3.
looks like the driver installed by windows 10 was the issue.

if i notice this i sometimes add/edit a "RIP context" or something like that.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling

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 03:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.