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 3rd November 2015, 20:26   #34041  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,716
Sorry to say, but these settings are simply bizarre (wth invent people stuff like that?).

NNEDI3 128 neurons for chroma are a huge waste of performance, even 32 are quite luxury (with filmed content, NNEDI3 will hardly ever look noticeably better than Jinc AR for chroma).

Always using NNEDI3 for image doubling is also pure nonsense in 99% of cases. Linear scaling algorithms like Jinc introduce more artifacts the higher the scaling factor is. With <1.5x scaling, there usually hardly is an advantage of NNEDI3 over Jinc AR.
And 128 neurons are an insane count and most content doesn't profit much by the additional neurons, compared to 64.

DXVA scaling is simply bad quality wise. Don't do it if you aren't forced by badly slow hardware.
Use Jinc AR and Catmull-Rom AR for downscaling instead.

Don't use Error Diffusion if you can't see a difference for yourself. Instead, stick to normal ordered dithering of madVR.

Don't use CUVID, as it's a blackbox to developers (Nvidia doesn't grant nevcairiel or any other dev any control over it). Instead, use DXVA2 Copyback. It achieves the same quality and speed, but it doesn't have any drawbacks (instead of worse compatibility compared to software decoding, which almost never is an issue).
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 00:45   #34042  |  Link
iSeries
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 603
Looking at either a R7 260x or an R7 360 to replace my R7 250. They're pretty much the same price. Is either one preferred over the other for MadVR?
iSeries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 01:05   #34043  |  Link
Warner306
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozokaydin View Post
MadVR Option High End PC DXVA2 Alternative Configuration
chroma upscaling NNEDI3 128 Neurons
Image Doubling Always use NNEDI3 to Double Luma and Chroma Resolution using 128 neurons
Image Upscaling DXVA2
Image Downscaling DXVA2
smooth motion Enable Smooth Motion only if judder without
dithering Error Diffusion Option 1
Video Codec CUVID with hardware deinterlacing

I found this suggestion on a forum. In this senario, by using dxva for upscaling and downscaling does image doubling work for example for 720p content? ı am not sure it will work while using dxva.
You would be better off using these settings:
  • Chroma: super-xbr125 + AR
  • Image: Lanczos3 + AR
  • Double Luma: 1.5x or greater - NNEDI3 64 Neurons
  • Double Chroma: Off
  • Downscaling: Catmull-Rom + AR + LL
  • Upscaling Refinement: SuperRes (strength: 1, sharpness: 2)
  • Artifact Removal - Debanding: Medium/High
  • Image Enhancements: Off
  • Dithering: Ordered
Image doubling for 720p content can have an advantage when used with SuperRes. I find SuperRes makes fewer errors when used with sharp, artifact-free image scaling such as super-xbr or NNEDI3. The overall image appears sharper.

If you aren't using SuperRes, image doubling won't make much a difference at a 1.5x scaling factor.

Last edited by Warner306; 4th November 2015 at 01:07.
Warner306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 01:05   #34044  |  Link
wanezhiling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,169
No, R7 series are all weak
wanezhiling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 01:25   #34045  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSeries View Post
Looking at either a R7 260x or an R7 360 to replace my R7 250. They're pretty much the same price. Is either one preferred over the other for MadVR?
the r7 360 is usually a bit faster thanks to the higher core clock of 50-100 mhz.

looks like they are both the same chip with a different name.

both have about double the speed of the r7 250
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 03:02   #34046  |  Link
XRyche
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanezhiling View Post
No, R7 series are all weak
My MSI R7 265 is not bad either especially for it's price point. It's like having a R9 270. I know it is by no means top of the line but it does a decent job with madVR and NNEDI3 Image doubling.
__________________
Intel i5 3470, EVGA GTX 1050Ti SC ACX 2.0, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit, 16 GB 1600 mhz DDR3 RAM
XRyche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 14:39   #34047  |  Link
iSeries
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 603
Seems I can get an R7 265 for the same price as ether an R7 260x or R7 360. It has more shaders, twice as many ROPs and greater memory bandwidth but a lower clock speed. What's more important for MadVR?
iSeries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 15:21   #34048  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,716
In practice, the R7 265 is quite faster than the other mentioned graphics cards.
It's usually always better to go with the bigger GPU if they are more or less the same generation as the smaller ones.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 16:58   #34049  |  Link
AngelGraves13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warner306 View Post
You would be better off using these settings:
  • Chroma: super-xbr125 + AR
  • Image: Lanczos3 + AR
  • Double Luma: 1.5x or greater - NNEDI3 64 Neurons
  • Double Chroma: Off
  • Downscaling: Catmull-Rom + AR + LL
  • Upscaling Refinement: SuperRes (strength: 1, sharpness: 2)
  • Artifact Removal - Debanding: Medium/High
  • Image Enhancements: Off
  • Dithering: Ordered
Image doubling for 720p content can have an advantage when used with SuperRes. I find SuperRes makes fewer errors when used with sharp, artifact-free image scaling such as super-xbr or NNEDI3. The overall image appears sharper.

If you aren't using SuperRes, image doubling won't make much a difference at a 1.5x scaling factor.
I prefer Jinc AR for Chroma, and Image Upscaling. SuperXBR can be too sharp and I don't have enough time in my life to test out the optimal sharpness.

SupeRes is pointless as well, as it likely just sharpens the image and I literally can't tell what it does after a good hour of viewing with/without it.

Last edited by AngelGraves13; 4th November 2015 at 17:01.
AngelGraves13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 17:12   #34050  |  Link
Luv
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by XRyche View Post
My MSI R7 265 is not bad either especially for it's price point. It's like having a R9 270. I know it is by no means top of the line but it does a decent job with madVR and NNEDI3 Image doubling.
HD7790 (= + or - 260x),with Omega driver:
- D3D11
- chroma up:super-xbr (100)
- image down: Spline (4)
- image doubling: none
- image upscaling: Jinc
- dithering: ED 2
- No quality trade

The results are plain smashing (Even with interlaced samples).Big thanks,Madshi!
For me,89.12 is almost perfect (Almost because the codec in use isn't indicated in the OSD anymore and what does "Touch window from inside" mean?).
__________________
7/32,ZP Max 10,LAV 0.66,madVR 89.12,HD 7790,Omega driver 14.12.
Luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 17:26   #34051  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelGraves13 View Post
I prefer Jinc AR for Chroma, and Image Upscaling. SuperXBR can be too sharp and I don't have enough time in my life to test out the optimal sharpness.
super-xbr has very big problems with ringing, you have to sacrifice a lot of sharpness to get to an acceptable ringing level if the source isn't optimal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelGraves13 View Post
SupeRes is pointless as well, as it likely just sharpens the image and I literally can't tell what it does after a good hour of viewing with/without it.
madshi gave us some more SuperRes options with the latest builds, you could try a sharpness of 3 (and maybe 2 passes instead + linear light).
It should be very visible in most cases, but of course additional sharpness gets harder to notice with increasing viewing distance.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 18:02   #34052  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv View Post
For me,89.12 is almost perfect (Almost because the codec in use isn't indicated in the OSD anymore
works fine with h264, vc-1 and mpeg2 like it always did.
Quote:
and what does "Touch window from inside" mean?).
that's how scaling is done it kind of means scale the image but don't crop it.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 21:37   #34053  |  Link
Warner306
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
super-xbr has very big problems with ringing, you have to sacrifice a lot of sharpness to get to an acceptable ringing level if the source isn't optimal.


madshi gave us some more SuperRes options with the latest builds, you could try a sharpness of 3 (and maybe 2 passes instead + linear light).
It should be very visible in most cases, but of course additional sharpness gets harder to notice with increasing viewing distance.
super-xbr has about as much ringing as Jinc in the test images I've seen. According to the chart in madVR, it is one of the best algorithms with regards to ringing. It is not that bad at all. I use it all the time.

These comparison shots show super-xbr is superior:

Image Comparison – Clown:
Jinc
super-xbr100
NNEDI3 256 neurons

Image Comparison – Lighthouse:
Jinc
super-xbr100
NNEDI3 256 neurons

Image Comparison – Lighthouse Top:
Jinc
super-xbr100
NNEDI3 256 neurons

Last edited by Warner306; 4th November 2015 at 21:51.
Warner306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 22:29   #34054  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,716
With the lighthouse top example, you can see that with a sharpness of 100, the ringing with super-xbr is clearly more distinct than with Jinc AR.
And the top needle (and dark line structures in general) gets very fat, which is another disadvantage.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 22:32   #34055  |  Link
Luv
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
works fine with h264, vc-1 and mpeg2 like it always did.


that's how scaling is done it kind of means scale the image but don't crop it.
Thanks for the explanations,Huhn.I just rebooted and everything is back to normal.
__________________
7/32,ZP Max 10,LAV 0.66,madVR 89.12,HD 7790,Omega driver 14.12.
Luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 22:36   #34056  |  Link
Warner306
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
With the lighthouse top example, you can see that with a sharpness of 100, the ringing with super-xbr is clearly more distinct than with Jinc AR.
And the top needle (and dark line structures in general) gets very fat, which is another disadvantage.
Sure the ringing is more distinct, but not larger. This is due to the detail brought-out by super-xbr, which gives it an overall advantage. With real world content, super-xbr is not nearly as distracting as Bicubic100 or Lanczos4, with regards to ringing. It is actually pretty good at avoiding excessive ringing.

I have heard a couple of people say super-xbr rings too much. But I don't think this is true.

Last edited by Warner306; 4th November 2015 at 22:39.
Warner306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 23:12   #34057  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warner306 View Post
Sure the ringing is more distinct, but not larger. This is due to the detail brought-out by super-xbr, which gives it an overall advantage.
I'm afraid it's not just details what super-xbr brings out.
More intensive haloing and very fat lines are not to be found in the source.

If you watch cartoons with ringing right along black contoure lines, it is very annoying (and lines also get too fat).
It gets even uglier if you put SuperRes on top and super-xbr 100 tends also more to aliasing than NNEDI3 64.

With bacondither's new Adaptive Sharpen experimental build (not yet included in madVR), you can get more sharpness with NNEDI3 as well, without ugly haloing. The same goes for NNEDI3 + SuperRes.

Of course Jinc isn't magic, yes. It's a limited linear scaler. But with super-xbr, you get a very soft image if you don't want ringing or dark lines boosted.
Probably less of an issue for many BDs, but there's always a first time when some artifacts become annoying.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th November 2015, 23:51   #34058  |  Link
Warner306
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
I'm afraid it's not just details what super-xbr brings out.
More intensive haloing and very fat lines are not to be found in the source.

If you watch cartoons with ringing right along black contoure lines, it is very annoying (and lines also get too fat).
It gets even uglier if you put SuperRes on top and super-xbr 100 tends also more to aliasing than NNEDI3 64.

With bacondither's new Adaptive Sharpen experimental build (not yet included in madVR), you can get more sharpness with NNEDI3 as well, without ugly haloing. The same goes for NNEDI3 + SuperRes.

Of course Jinc isn't magic, yes. It's a limited linear scaler. But with super-xbr, you get a very soft image if you don't want ringing or dark lines boosted.
Probably less of an issue for many BDs, but there's always a first time when some artifacts become annoying.
I've read madshi prefers super-xbr to Jinc. And past posts have found NNEDI3 and super-xbr are the best algorithms to use with SuperRes because they are sharper. SuperRes + Jinc leads to an image that appears bloated compared to SuperRes + super-xbr.

It is all subjective. The haloing is not noticeable with real-world content, to me, and the extra detail is very apparent.

I'm just standing up for super-xbr as a great algorithm as has been said about Jinc and NNEDI3. Other's mileage will vary.

This a quote from madshi:

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
I've decided to make a big screenshot Based on that, here's another comparison, comparing different upscaling algorithms, followed by SuperRes:

Bilinear+SuperRes -|- Jinc+SuperRes -|- super-xbr+SuperRes -|- NNEDI3+SuperRes -|- GroundTruth

What we can see here is that SuperRes works well even when using Bilinear upscaling. However, SuperRes does *not* remove aliasing artifacts caused by the upscaling algorithm. E.g. look at the roof edges of the left two towers. Both Bilinear and Jinc have aliasing problems there. super-xbr and NNEDI3 have not. Because of this reason, my recommendation would be to use either super-xbr or NNEDI3, followed by SuperRes, for best image quality. The difference between super-xbr and NNEDI3 is pretty small, if you follow it up with SuperRes with high strength. So using super-xbr should save some precious GPU performance. Using Jinc+SuperRes might be an option, too, but you'll likely get more aliasing problems compared to super-xbr+SuperRes.

Last edited by Warner306; 4th November 2015 at 23:58.
Warner306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2015, 00:48   #34059  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,716
Well, as I said, super-xbr may look mostly fine with most BD content, so it's absolutely legitimate to like it.

I'm aware that super-xbr reconstructs lines much better than Jinc with increasing scaling factor.
However, sharpness values over 75 can introduce a lot of artifacts. This doesn't have to be an issue for a specific picture, but there are definitely cases where it can look far from good.

For instance, you can hardly use SuperRes in linear light with super-xbr 100, as lines will get extremely fat. And you may not use gamma light either, since super-xbr 100 already noticeably highers many areas of the picture.
In fact, I even find super-xbr 100 alone with your Lighthouse example unconvenient to the eyes. It looks like a very artificial contrast to me. The line boosting of SuperRes LL is almost harmless, compared to super-xbr 100.

In the end, it's a matter of taste. However, I think it's a fact that super-xbr can't be combined well with most postprocessing, unlike NNEDI3.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2015, 07:33   #34060  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 838
I can't see wanting to use additional post processing on top of a sharp scaler. A picture should look effortless.
JarrettH 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 12:15.


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