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, 12:22   #42261  |  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   #42262  |  Link
cork_OS
Registered User
 
cork_OS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 160
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   #42263  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,646
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   #42264  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
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   #42265  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
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   #42266  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
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   #42267  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,229
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   #42268  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
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   #42269  |  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   #42270  |  Link
Xaurus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 288
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: Fractal Design Node 804 | Xeon E3-1260L v5 | Supermicro X11SSZ-TLN4F | Samsung 2x8GB DDR4 ECC | Samsung 850 EVO 1TB | MSI GTX 1650 Super | EVGA G2 750
Xaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 16:33   #42271  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
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
Old 5th February 2017, 17:11   #42272  |  Link
Xaurus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 288
huhn,

Well for what it's worth, I just watched an episode now with NNEDI3 instead of NGU and guess what - no frame drop spikes...
__________________
SETUP: Win 10/MPC-HC/LAV/MadVR
HARDWARE: Fractal Design Node 804 | Xeon E3-1260L v5 | Supermicro X11SSZ-TLN4F | Samsung 2x8GB DDR4 ECC | Samsung 850 EVO 1TB | MSI GTX 1650 Super | EVGA G2 750
Xaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 17:24   #42273  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
NEDDI 3 is generally less costly especially if you have a powerful CPU/GPU combination.

What you see are drops based on the fact that the GPU Shader and Driver have problems to hold the Performance at a given resolution the overhead eats everything and NGU is thirsty for Shaders it eats them alive and depending on the overall System stability state you could run into all kind of performance mulithread issues on Windoze resulting in frames get droped and then the big buffers wont help either anymore.
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :)

It is about Time

Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late !

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004

Last edited by CruNcher; 5th February 2017 at 17:38.
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 18:29   #42274  |  Link
cyberscott
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 92
FYI, I'm running Windows 10 64 bit with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 and up-scaling everything to 3840x2160p59.

Trying out the new "pixel art" NGU.

I ran through several clips of 480p animated material of varying quality, starting with my current settings of chroma NNEDI3-32 and Luma doubling NNED13-64 neurons; quadrupling 32 neurons.

I then compared the same 480p clips with NGU pixel art with NGU set to "'very high" for both chroma and luma.
So far, it works extremely well and could replace NNEDI3 in my set up for SD content.

It does provide a "smooth" looking picture for SD and not overly sharp as the original NGU for SD content. Lines look good too, aliasing is kept in check, at least to my eyes.
Also, I averaged 3-4 millisecond less rendering times with the pixel art NGU than with NNEDI3.

So far, a very nice improvement for standard def up-scaling in this test build, Madshi. Keep up the great work!
cyberscott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 18:50   #42275  |  Link
Georgel
Visual Novel Dev.
 
Georgel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 200
@madshi

Thank you for answering all our questions!

I'm still curious about this; I am watching FHD videos, especially anime on a 2560 x 1440 display. Should I be using NNEDI or XBR or NGU for best results?

Also, regarding the new NGU pixart, I will try to give you a subjective order of how I prefer the images from the samples selected earlier:

Jinc < Waifu2x < NGU Very High <NNEDI 256< NNEDI 16 < NGU Pixart Very High< NGU Pixart Low = NGU Pixart Med < Super XBR

I will try to generate a series of samples by myself and maybe the results will be different, but this is the preliminary thoughts about the samples provided. for the sample provided, when zoomed in at a 300% factor.

When viewed at 100% of it's zoom, the order changes radically:

Jinc < SuperXBR < NNEDI 16 < NNEDI 256 < NGU Very High < Waifu2x <NGU Pixart Very High < NGU Pixart Med < NGU Pixart Low

I hope that it helps you out - this is just my subjective opinion on the samples given though, sorry if it digresses from anyone else's.

returning to my question, I understand that watching 1920 x 1080 materials on an 2560 x 1440 display is not the best idea, but which algo would be best for anime?
Georgel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 18:50   #42276  |  Link
AngelGraves13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by citrixscu View Post
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.
Honestly, there isn't much point in doubling and scaling down. Too many conversions will screw with the image quality. I'm just going to go back to Jinc as it still looks the best and performs great. Maybe a scaler that's superior will show up at some point, but for now, Jinc is the gold standard in scaling.
AngelGraves13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 18:59   #42277  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
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.
Why does a 1 pixel wide line in the source image have to result in an exact 2 pixel wide line in the upscaled image? When talking about highly aliased sources, there's no guarantee that assumption must be true. If you want each source pixel to map exactly to a 2x2 pixel in the upscaled image, basically you can do nearest neighbor upscaling. The pixel art specific algos like NNEDI3 and NGU pixart work differently. They take each source pixel as a given pixel and don't make any fixed assumptions on how the "missing" pixels in the upscaled image should look like. Instead they try to understand the overall image structure and then decide which interpolated pixels have the highest probability of being correct.

If you look at the NNEDI3-256 image, the lines are not exactly 2 pixels, either. Some of them are sharper/thinner than that, too. But you already said you never liked NNEDI3, either. Maybe that's why?

When talking about "hand drawn" pix art like Mario or other games, where each pixel was carefully set by an artist, I suppose another different algorithm could be designed which does make some assumptions like a 1 pixel wide line should double to a 2 pixel wide line. But if you think about aliased Anime videos, there could be many different reasons for why they could be aliased. One good reason is that at some point someone might have simply dropped every other line or colum (aka nearest neighbor downscaling). When doing that, a 1 pixel wide line in the low-res image could either be a 1-pixel wide line in the high-res image, or a 2-pixel wide line, or something in between.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
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.
The chroma bleeding probably comes from using Bicubic60 for chroma upscaling. Try switching to NGU pixart very high quality. That will result in NGU pixart to be used for the chroma channels, too. That should reduce chroma bleeding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberscott View Post
I ran through several clips of 480p animated material of varying quality, starting with my current settings of chroma NNEDI3-32 and Luma doubling NNED13-64 neurons; quadrupling 32 neurons.

I then compared the same 480p clips with NGU pixel art with NGU set to "'very high" for both chroma and luma.
So far, it works extremely well and could replace NNEDI3 in my set up for SD content.

It does provide a "smooth" looking picture for SD and not overly sharp as the original NGU for SD content. Lines look good too, aliasing is kept in check, at least to my eyes.
Also, I averaged 3-4 millisecond less rendering times with the pixel art NGU than with NNEDI3.

So far, a very nice improvement for standard def up-scaling in this test build, Madshi. Keep up the great work!
Finally some good news - thanks!

So would you say image quality is the same as before with 3-4 milliseconds saved? Or is image quality slightly better or worse than before? Can you see a difference in quality between NGU pixart Very High and NGU pixart Medium?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgel View Post
I'm still curious about this; I am watching FHD videos, especially anime on a 2560 x 1440 display. Should I be using NNEDI or XBR or NGU for best results?
IMHO, if your source is clean (meaning no visible aliasing and no noticeable compression artifacts), standard NGU is the best algorithm to use. If your source is highly aliased (some low-res Anime sources seem to be), NGU pixart or NNEDI3 might be the best solution instead. Not sure what to do with sources that have lots of compression artifacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgel View Post
Also, regarding the new NGU pixart, I will try to give you a subjective order of how I prefer the images from the samples selected earlier:

Jinc < Waifu2x < NGU Very High <NNEDI 256< NNEDI 16 < NGU Pixart Very High< NGU Pixart Low = NGU Pixart Med < Super XBR

I will try to generate a series of samples by myself and maybe the results will be different, but this is the preliminary thoughts about the samples provided. for the sample provided, when zoomed in at a 300% factor.

When viewed at 100% of it's zoom, the order changes radically:

Jinc < SuperXBR < NNEDI 16 < NNEDI 256 < NGU Very High < Waifu2x <NGU Pixart Very High < NGU Pixart Med < NGU Pixart Low
It's interesting that you like super-xbr much more when zoomed at 300% and much less in 100% view. It's also interesting that you seem to like NGU pixart low quite a lot. It does have visible more aliasing in the final image compared to NGU pixart medium, so I find that a bit surprising.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 19:28   #42278  |  Link
Neet009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelGraves13 View Post
NGU-VeryHigh still performs quite slow on my 1080 GTX and drops frames down to 0-2 render queue, so it's still unuseable.
Do you try setting the player's power management mode to "Prefer maximum performance" on NV control panel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
1) Do you think NNEDI3 looks better? Or the new NGU pixart variant?
2) How does performance compare for you?
3) Can I replace NNEDI3 with NGU pixart in the next official build (pretty please)?
4) Can I replace super-xbr (for luma doubling, only) with NGU pixart in the next official build?
1)I have tested some aliased low-res anime content, I think NGU pixart did a good job of reducing aliasing and some artifacts even better than NNEDI3. I compared NGU pixart-very high with NNEDI3-128, the sharpeness is similar, but NGU pixart is cleaner and use less performance.

2) NGU pixart-very high is faster than NNEDI3-128, but a little slower than NNEDI3-64 (Graphics card is GTX 1060 6GB)

3)IMO, yes, I think NGU pixart is good enough to replace NNEDI3.

4)I don't use super-xbr at all so I have no comment.
Neet009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 19:43   #42279  |  Link
pose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 69
madshi, i just tested NGU pixart very high VS NNEDI3 256 on low quality SD anime source. Both look VERY similar. Performance wise NGU is 12ms while NNEDI3 is 21ms. Great job!
pose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2017, 19:45   #42280  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neet009 View Post
1)I have tested some aliased low-res anime content, I think NGU pixart did a good job of reducing aliasing and some artifacts even better than NNEDI3. I compared NGU pixart-very high with NNEDI3-128, the sharpeness is similar, but NGU pixart is cleaner and use less performance.

2) NGU pixart-very high is faster than NNEDI3-128, but a little slower than NNEDI3-64 (Graphics card is GTX 1060 6GB)

3)IMO, yes, I think NGU pixart is good enough to replace NNEDI3.

4)I don't use super-xbr at all so I have no comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pose View Post
madshi, i just tested NGU pixart very high VS NNEDI3 256 on low quality SD anime source. Both look VERY similar. Performance wise NGU is 12ms while NNEDI3 is 21ms. Great job!
That's good to hear, thank you guys!

Can you comment on how you would rate NGU pixart "low" and "medium" quality compared to NNEDI3?
madshi 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 03:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.