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. |
8th June 2015, 19:55 | #30861 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 187
|
Quote:
I haven’t had the time to test the sharpening and refinement algos. I will be doing some extensive testing by this weekend and post my feedback soon. However, if we focus on just one algo at a time, it will need less time to do the testing and I wouldn’t have to wait for the weekend to come. |
|
8th June 2015, 20:36 | #30862 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
nevcairiel is kinda right. I already did SuperRes and Finesharp tests for myself weeks ago.
Now my interest got somewhat low. But I'll post some cartoon comparisons this week. What I remember: high error upscaling quality can look better, but hard to say if it's worth the extra resources. SuperRes for chroma gives undesired results, vanishes contours. SuperRes for luma is great, image can look much sharper with almost no artifacts introduced (with the correct settings). NNEDI is still worse than NNEDI3, also with SuperRes (introduces visible aliasing). I find FineSharp more natural than Lumasharpen. Problem with sharp sources could be solved to some degree if we had a deblock pass first. |
8th June 2015, 21:33 | #30863 | Link | ||||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, here's a test build somewhere between v0.88.8 and v0.88.9. You said the problem started with v0.88.9, right? Please let me know if this test build fills the queues like v0.88.8 did, or not. http://madshi.net/madVR889test1.rar Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
8th June 2015, 21:43 | #30864 | Link | |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
http://madshi.net/madVR889test2.rar And don't use error diffusion in this build. |
|
8th June 2015, 21:51 | #30865 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 753
|
Well, SuperRes only removes the ringing afterwards, so enabling MadVR's anti ringing should have some effect. I suspect SuperRes will converge slightly faster if you use madVR's anti-ringing. The difference, if any, will be most visible when you use a low number of passes (which seems to be the popular choice).
|
8th June 2015, 21:52 | #30866 | Link |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Feedback
I've changed my mind. I think we'll make bigger steps faster, if we concentrate the feedback on very specific things. So while you're welcome to do further tests with SuperRes etc, if you like, please concentrate your efforts on FineSharp. I would like to remove all the FineSharp controls, and just end up with low/medium/high (for both "image enhancement" and "upscaling refinement"). When testing FineSharp, it would make sense to disable LumaSharpen and SuperRes, so that you really only test FineSharp separately. You can test FineSharp either in image enhancements (before upscaling) or in upscaling refinement (after upscaling). Testing it before upscaling should have a stronger effect, so it might be easier to see the difference between various settings there. But you decide whether you want to test it before or after upscaling. Questions: 1) Do you prefer linear light on or off? 2) In my own very short tests I found that FineSharp sometimes introduces aliasing artifacts. These seem to be mostly fixed by setting the "repair" option to rather high values. Personally, I've tried setting "repair" to 1.0, and liked the result. But what is your opinion about this? Do you find "repair" at 1.0 works for you? Or would you prefer it at a lower value? 3) Do you see a difference worth noting between the 3 different modes? Please note that these modes will make more of a difference if the sources have stronger grain. So in order to judge which modes work best and which worst, it might make sense to also test with a source with a lot of grain in it. FWIW, mode 3 is slower, modes 1 and 2 are faster. So if you like mode 3 best, but not much better than 1 and 2, then it would still be useful to know whether you prefer 1 over 2 or the other way round. 4) Which combinations of strength and thinning would you suggest for low/medium/high presets? Thanks! |
8th June 2015, 22:47 | #30867 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
|
|
8th June 2015, 23:26 | #30868 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 62
|
Feedback Finesharp
I find Finesharp extremely useful for high quality sources (e.g. high bitrate BluRay). With lesser source material artifacts become too obvious, but put great stuff in, and it results in a nice boost of clarity, apparent sharpness without the "fat look" of traditional "Edge Enhancement". Very nice! So I will only comment on using it with native 1080p BluRay playback (therefor no scaling, -> image enhancement). 1) I certainly prefer linear light ON. It introduces less ringing/halos/artifacts in many examples to my eye. There are test charts that make that more than obvious: eg. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9J...ew?usp=sharing 2) The default values + linear light are working great for me. Repair 1.0 does no harm either from what I can see. 3) I prefer mode 3 (slightly less artifacts), can't find an example where I can see a relevant difference between 1 and 2 4) Again, default values + linear light + mode 3 work great for me. everything over strength 2.0 get's problematic, I wouldn't go over ~2.5 even on very good sources. Last edited by TheLion; 8th June 2015 at 23:30. |
9th June 2015, 00:20 | #30870 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 180
|
finesharp (only mode 1, strength from .4- 1.0, repair default)
I like it as image refinement(which had been known since it was a avisyth script), not so much for upscaling. finesharp on upscale material seem to bring artifact out(which can also say it do a good job sharpening?) . linear light on seem to make the artifact harder, prefer it off. |
9th June 2015, 03:32 | #30873 | Link |
Soul Architect
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,559
|
I was wondering the same question, and then tried to use only SuperRes for anti-ringing. It did NOT remove ringing resulting from upscaling.
__________________
FrameRateConverter | AvisynthShader | AvsFilterNet | Natural Grounding Player with Yin Media Encoder, 432hz Player, Powerliminals Player and Audio Video Muxer Last edited by MysteryX; 24th June 2015 at 06:03. |
9th June 2015, 04:31 | #30874 | Link | |
Troubleshooter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 339
|
Quote:
Now to your specific questions: 1) Like I said in my previous post in FineSharp testing I like FineSharp better with linear light enabled if I'm using the image enhancement version, but if I'm using the upscaling refinement version I prefer it off. 2) The repair setting has no noticable effect as far as I can tell on my system. I see no difference (no improvement) between having a setting of 0.10 and 1.0. Is there another madVR setting that might be interfering with the the repair effect? 3) I'm not seeing a significant difference between the three modes. (I guess my test videos don't have enough grain). 4) I think I prefer lesser amounts of strength. What else is combined with with FineSharp to enhance/refine/upscale can be a factor to what to set FineSharp to. With more power choices in other areas FineSharp can be used with lesser power. I think 0.5 isn't a bad setting. Depending on other peoples thoughts that might make a good low. Thinning could be left at the current default unless there is a general consensus by other users that another setting works better. I think its worth people reporting if they used any type of image doubling during their testing. For me image doubling has a very strong effect on FineSharp.
__________________
System specs: Sager NP9150 SE with i7-3630QM 2.40GHz, 16 GB RAM, 64-bit Windows 10 Pro, NVidia GTX 680M/Intel 4000 HD optimus dual GPU system. Video viewed on LG notebook screen and LG 3D passive TV. Last edited by Anime Viewer; 9th June 2015 at 04:39. |
|
9th June 2015, 04:34 | #30875 | Link |
Soul Architect
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,559
|
madshi, did you remove the feature that displays the volume level when scrolling up and down with the mouse?
__________________
FrameRateConverter | AvisynthShader | AvsFilterNet | Natural Grounding Player with Yin Media Encoder, 432hz Player, Powerliminals Player and Audio Video Muxer Last edited by MysteryX; 24th June 2015 at 06:03. |
9th June 2015, 05:27 | #30876 | Link | |
Soul Architect
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,559
|
Quote:
SuperRes's anti-ringing *can* replace the upscaler's anti-ringing, but .50 is not enough. It takes more something like .75. Madshi, does that anti-ringing apply to both chroma and luma? It doesn't do as good of an anti-ringing job than the standard anti-ringing, but removing standard anti-ringing allows to save on performance, increase other settings, or afford SuperRes. I know you're looking into FineSharp for now, but when you get to SuperRes, perhaps you could have a few preset, and then the option of having 1 or 2 passes. If doing a single pass, all the values need to be higher to give a similar result. I can only afford a single pass.
__________________
FrameRateConverter | AvisynthShader | AvsFilterNet | Natural Grounding Player with Yin Media Encoder, 432hz Player, Powerliminals Player and Audio Video Muxer Last edited by MysteryX; 24th June 2015 at 06:02. |
|
9th June 2015, 06:16 | #30877 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
Quote:
And of course again, testing 0.88.8 with D3D11 10-bit, queues fill. A 64 bit .ax file for testing, similar to the previous debugging builds you provided, would be preferred - to avoid having to use a 32bit player. Thanks. |
||
9th June 2015, 09:27 | #30880 | Link | ||||||||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
What would you suggest for medium and low presets? And how much better do you like mode 3? I'm asking because it costs more performance. So the question is whether it's worth the added performance cost? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://madshi.net/castleOrg.png Double it with NNEDI3, then apply FineSharp as upscaling refinement. Then compare repair with 0.0 to 1.0. Look at the diagonal roof lines. They contain a bit of aliasing when using repair 0.0, which is mostly gone with 1.0. Using 0.25 is somewhere in between. It's a subtle difference in this image. I've seen far worse aliasing caused by FineSharp in other images. Sadly I can't find them on a quick look right now. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://madshi.net/madVR64queueFix1.rar If it does fix the issue, please also double check with 23/24p display modes (if your display supports them), with both this build and v0.88.8. Your logs so far were mostly 59p, IIRC. |
||||||||||
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
|
|