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. |
10th February 2014, 02:25 | #22861 | Link |
MPC-HC Developer
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 586
|
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)
|
10th February 2014, 02:34 | #22862 | Link |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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. |
10th February 2014, 03:03 | #22863 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 139
|
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. |
10th February 2014, 06:17 | #22864 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 4,407
|
Quote:
Quote:
It sounds like directcompute isn't working correctly on your system and that is what is used by ED dither now. Last edited by Asmodian; 10th February 2014 at 06:20. |
||
10th February 2014, 06:47 | #22865 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,926
|
Quote:
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... ? |
|
10th February 2014, 07:13 | #22866 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,840
|
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.
__________________
PC: FX-8320 GTS250 HTPC: G1610 GTX650 PotPlayer/MPC-BE LAVFilters MadVR-Bicubic75AR/Lanczos4AR/Lanczos4AR LumaSharpen -Strength0.9-Pattern3-Clamp0.1-OffsetBias2.0 Last edited by turbojet; 10th February 2014 at 07:16. |
10th February 2014, 08:06 | #22867 | Link | |
Broadband Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,859
|
Quote:
Last edited by cyberbeing; 10th February 2014 at 08:10. |
|
10th February 2014, 08:23 | #22868 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,926
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10th February 2014, 08:45 | #22869 | Link | |
Broadband Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,859
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by cyberbeing; 10th February 2014 at 09:23. |
|
10th February 2014, 10:44 | #22871 | Link | ||||||||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
I still believe the algorithm I was using was alright, though, although limited to only 16bit, so not as good as yours. Quote:
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). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
------- 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 |
||||||||||
10th February 2014, 11:30 | #22872 | Link | ||
Broadband Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,859
|
Quote:
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) Quote:
Last edited by cyberbeing; 9th March 2014 at 07:39. |
||
10th February 2014, 12:31 | #22873 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 753
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10th February 2014, 12:39 | #22874 | Link | |
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
Interesting, I rolled 4 and 5 quite extensively but ultimately 5 won by quite a long run.
Quote:
I might just do it the russian way and bribe everybody to sing along, you guys take paypal? |
|
10th February 2014, 13:12 | #22875 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 447
|
@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). |
10th February 2014, 13:40 | #22876 | Link |
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
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. |
10th February 2014, 13:51 | #22877 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
|
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.
__________________
System: i7 3770K, GTX660, Win7 64bit, Panasonic ST60, Dell U2410. |
10th February 2014, 14:10 | #22880 | Link | |
Broadband Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,859
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
|
|