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 14th June 2015, 16:40   #31021  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
i can't disagree on these screenshoots but without LL there are other issue too.

but the squirrel looks way better without LL! and the dark parts of the fur are better without LL too.
Yes, that's exactly what I see. It is just way more natural. LL adds something to the image that just makes it look totally "processed", while no LL really does a great job and just amplifies the basic picture details like a good sharpener should do it.

Since we are watching videos, movies and also game recordings, all of them look totally "processed" when using finesharp with LL. That's apparently the difference people see, but this is no ways means that it is more accurate. It's exactly the other way around, as you can see in the screenshots.

Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 16:43.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:42   #31022  |  Link
flashmozzg
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
the biggest issue i see with super xbr is holoing/ringing on all your screens. let's see what superres can do about that.
I agree. It is especially noticeable in lighthouse top fence.
While it looks cool and sometimes better than jinc nnedi is the closest to how it should really look like. If only there was a way to get rid off this ringing...
flashmozzg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:07   #31023  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 496
@madshi:
Can you please provide the original lighthouse top crop that you used for the comparisons? I want to make some tests, I need the original source of your crop, though.

From what I can see in your comparisons:

1) super-xbr introduces heavy ringing artefacts compared to NNEDI16
2) super-xbr shows more fine details (it's sharper) than NNEDI16, which seems to be a result of the very heavy edge-amplification that super-xbr does.

With access to your original cropped shot, I am pretty sure that NNEDI16 with finesharp and no LL basically will have all the positives of NNEDI and it will also show more fine details without the heavy ringing.

So it's only good for users where performance matters a lot, but for image quality it seems a step backwards.

I will do some of my own tests with it for a final conclusion.

Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 17:11.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:20   #31024  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 860
While we're talking about linear light, is linear light dithering (the trade option) a good thing? I see the trade options as more objective improvements

Edit: I think I found my answer, but I didn't realize linear light is so debatable

Last edited by JarrettH; 14th June 2015 at 17:24.
JarrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:27   #31025  |  Link
mbordas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 65
88.12 fixed the problem with display resolution being set to 23.969 instead of 23.976 when D3D11/FSE/10bit was enabled. The Custom Resolution Utlility (CRU) is no longer necessary. Thanks!
mbordas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:37   #31026  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 860
I'm in the more moderate camp for FineSharp. I look for a shot with hair clearly visible, then experiment with settings. I'm not looking for it to be sharper necessarily; what I don't want is for the result to be brightened too much. We want an upscaled original, not enhancement IMO. 1.0 to 1.5 strength is good...depends

Last edited by JarrettH; 14th June 2015 at 17:40.
JarrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:58   #31027  |  Link
Hyllian
Registered User
 
Hyllian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
madVR v0.88.12 released

http://madshi.net/madVR.zip

Code:
* added super-xbr image doubling algorithm
* added super-xbr chroma upscaling algorithm
Wow! That was fast!

Which anti-ringing are you using in the sxbr implementation? Is it ON in these screenshots?

I agree with you on the impressions. The alchilles heel of sxbr is ringing yet.
Hyllian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:04   #31028  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
Wow! That was fast!

Which anti-ringing are you using in the sxbr implementation? Is it ON in these screenshots?

I agree with you on the impressions. The alchilles heel of sxbr is ringing yet.
even nnedi3 shows the ringing so it should be in the source and sxbr just increases the strength of it more than the rest.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:12   #31029  |  Link
Hyllian
Registered User
 
Hyllian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
even nnedi3 shows the ringing so it should be in the source and sxbr just increases the strength of it more than the rest.
In fact. Observing further the images (sxbr ones) I can say that they are indeed using AA, though a soft one. It's possible to reduce a bit the ringing using the aggressive AA from the original sources, though it can't reduce the ringing to the NNEDI3 level.
Hyllian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:23   #31030  |  Link
MS-DOS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Looking at these screenshots, I can assume that XBR could be my new favorite if not for that ringing. Going to test it myself. Hyllian, madshi - great job!
MS-DOS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:47   #31031  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
In fact. Observing further the images (sxbr ones) I can say that they are indeed using AA, though a soft one. It's possible to reduce a bit the ringing using the aggressive AA from the original sources, though it can't reduce the ringing to the NNEDI3 level.
Maybe madshi could combine SXBR with his AR-algorithm, which he developed specifically to reduce ringing of the other upscalers. I am not sure about the specifics though, I always wondered why AR is not offered for NNEDI for instance, anyway.

Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 18:49.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:54   #31032  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
In fact. Observing further the images (sxbr ones) I can say that they are indeed using AA, though a soft one. It's possible to reduce a bit the ringing using the aggressive AA from the original sources, though it can't reduce the ringing to the NNEDI3 level.
jinc level would be awesome.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 19:22   #31033  |  Link
Hyllian
Registered User
 
Hyllian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
I forgot to mention to madshi that super-xbr can work like a framework for other filters.

In the default implementation it uses sinc filters to filter in the desired directions. The way sxbr work doesn't have to use only sinc filters. You can replace it by any other filter of interest.

Here is a sxbr test I made a month ago using cubic coefficients (instead sinc ones):

http://i.imgur.com/z1FXotC.png

As you can see, not as sharp as the sinc version, though much less ringing!

So, what I mean is that many results can be obtained with different filters used inside sxbr framework.

obs: for the example above I have used a simple (-1, 9, 9, -1) cubic filter.

Last edited by Hyllian; 14th June 2015 at 19:44.
Hyllian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 19:25   #31034  |  Link
tobindac
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
madVR v0.88.12 released

My first impression: super-xbr seems to better than NNEDI3 with 16 taps at producing aliasing free edges. It's also quite sharp and artifact free. However, NNEDI3 looks more "in focus", all the image features are a bit tighter. So I still prefer the overall "look" that NNEDI3 produces. However, super-xbr seems to be the best bang for the buck right now. It's reasonably fast (a bit slower than Jinc and Nedi, but much faster than NNEDI3-16).

Let me know what you think!
A new GPU seems to be able to handle NNEDI3-32 in 1080p content (with only chroma upscaling needs at least). I wonder if that's better than other options.
tobindac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 19:36   #31035  |  Link
Anima123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 504
Using super-xbr with SuperRes result in quite good quality. For me, super-xbr is sharp enough to let sharpness of SuperRes be 0, with anti-ringing strength set to 0.5.

The test is done with 1024x576 -> 1920x1080. SuperRes's sharpness tend to make the edge of people's face in the video not smooth, which is sometimes very annoying. I thought it was the C-R AR LL downscaling causing this.
Anima123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 19:58   #31036  |  Link
luk008
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 38
Present a frame for every Vsync in D3D11 should be used only if I've presentation glitches without it?
luk008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 20:02   #31037  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
I forgot to mention to madshi that super-xbr can work like a framework for other filters.

In the default implementation it uses sinc filters to filter in the desired directions. The way sxbr work doesn't have to use only sinc filters. You can replace it by any other filter of interest.

Here is a sxbr test I made a month ago using cubic coefficients (instead sinc ones):

http://i.imgur.com/z1FXotC.png

As you can see, not as sharp as the sinc version, though much less ringing!

So, what I mean is that many results can be obtained with different filters used inside sxbr framework.

obs: for the example above I have used a simple (-1, 9, 9, -1) cubic filter.
you mean it is much better.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 20:23   #31038  |  Link
James Freeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
BUG Report.

88.12 is completely unusable with my system (i7, gtx660), in D3D9 or D3D11; render & present are empty all the time in windowed fullscreen.
Back to 88.11 for now.
__________________
System: i7 3770K, GTX660, Win7 64bit, Panasonic ST60, Dell U2410.
James Freeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 21:01   #31039  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by JarrettH View Post
While we're talking about linear light, is linear light dithering (the trade option) a good thing?
Yes, most definitely, although the difference is getting progressively smaller the higher the dithering bitdepth is. At 8bit+ probably there's no visible difference, maybe not even a measurable one. At very low bitdepths the difference is pretty high, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
even nnedi3 shows the ringing so it should be in the source and sxbr just increases the strength of it more than the rest.
That's exactly the case. Probably the images I've chosen for the comparison are not really good choices because of the ringing that's already baked into them. Because super-xbr is much sharper than most other algorithms, it also sharpens the ringing that is already in the source. With a clean source super-xbr should not ring much more than Jinc AR does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
Wow! That was fast!

Which anti-ringing are you using in the sxbr implementation? Is it ON in these screenshots?

I agree with you on the impressions. The alchilles heel of sxbr is ringing yet.
I'm using a modified version of my own anti-ringing algorithm. My code is rather long, ugly and slow, but I think it's working reasonably well to differ between wanted and unwanted ringing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
In fact. Observing further the images (sxbr ones) I can say that they are indeed using AA, though a soft one. It's possible to reduce a bit the ringing using the aggressive AA from the original sources, though it can't reduce the ringing to the NNEDI3 level.
You mean AR (anti-ringing), not AA (anti-aliasing), I think? Just clarifying so that there are no misunderstandings.

Your original AR algorithm does reduce ringing a little bit more than my algorithm, but also introduces all kinds of artifacts because it's so agressive. I'll post comparison screenshots later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobindac View Post
A new GPU seems to be able to handle NNEDI3-32 in 1080p content (with only chroma upscaling needs at least). I wonder if that's better than other options.
"Better" is difficult to answer. If you look at the "clown" comparison images, super-xbr in some parts of the image is even better than NNEDI3-256 (e.g. the wheels of the white van), but worse in other parts. I do think that NNEDI3 is overall still the algorithm to beat, but it's also dramatically slower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
I forgot to mention to madshi that super-xbr can work like a framework for other filters.

In the default implementation it uses sinc filters to filter in the desired directions. The way sxbr work doesn't have to use only sinc filters. You can replace it by any other filter of interest.

Here is a sxbr test I made a month ago using cubic coefficients (instead sinc ones):

http://i.imgur.com/z1FXotC.png

As you can see, not as sharp as the sinc version, though much less ringing!

So, what I mean is that many results can be obtained with different filters used inside sxbr framework.

obs: for the example above I have used a simple (-1, 9, 9, -1) cubic filter.
Looks interesting. Would you mind uploading one of your 3 passes with cubic coefficients instead of sinc? I'm currently simply using your shaders, but haven't really tried to understand how they work in detail yet (due to lack of time). So I'm not quite sure where to replace the coefficients exactly. Must be one of those sinc related calls, but there's more than just one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by luk008 View Post
Present a frame for every Vsync in D3D11 should be used only if I've presentation glitches without it?
It doesn't hurt to always turn it on, but you might get slightly faster performance leaving it unchecked, if your display refresh rate is higher than the movie frame rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
BUG Report.

88.12 is completely unusable with my system (i7, gtx660), in D3D9 or D3D11; render & present are empty all the time in windowed fullscreen.
Back to 88.11 for now.
Strange. Can you please try to isolate what is causing the problem? So far nobody else has reported the problem. So it doesn't seem to be a general problem with v0.88.12. E.g. try to reset madVR settings to default. Is it only the render & present queues which are empty? Or also other queues?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
Can you please provide the original lighthouse top crop that you used for the comparisons? I want to make some tests, I need the original source of your crop, though.
Sure:

clown.png -|- lighthouse.png -|- lighthouseTop.png

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
From what I can see in your comparisons:

1) super-xbr introduces heavy ringing artefacts compared to NNEDI16
2) super-xbr shows more fine details (it's sharper) than NNEDI16, which seems to be a result of the very heavy edge-amplification that super-xbr does.

With access to your original cropped shot, I am pretty sure that NNEDI16 with finesharp and no LL basically will have all the positives of NNEDI and it will also show more fine details without the heavy ringing.

So it's only good for users where performance matters a lot, but for image quality it seems a step backwards.

I will do some of my own tests with it for a final conclusion.
I rather think that super-xbr enhances the ringing that's already in the source while NNEDI3 somehow manages to reduce it a little. It was not my intention to hype super-xbr as a NNEDI3 replacement. Just saying that IMHO it's quite a bit better than Jinc while being only moderately slower than Jinc. super-xbr in some aspects can compete with NNEDI3, in other aspects not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
I have enhanced the squirrel so that hopefully you can see what I mean with heavy artefacts with LL. I just want to make sure we are speaking of the same things.
I will not reply to this post of yours, unless you reply to my earlier posts first. I've written detailed replies to most of your previous FineSharp LL related posts, and so far you've decided to not comment on any of that at all. I can only hope that you've simply missed my posts?
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 21:21   #31040  |  Link
Hyllian
Registered User
 
Hyllian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Looks interesting. Would you mind uploading one of your 3 passes with cubic coefficients instead of sinc? I'm currently simply using your shaders, but haven't really tried to understand how they work in detail yet (due to lack of time). So I'm not quite sure where to replace the coefficients exactly. Must be one of those sinc related calls, but there's more than just one...
It's quite simple. In each pass there are only two calls to sinc function. They're called to return the weights necessary to the filter. The var 'w' recieves the weights. So, what you have to do to test other filters is to replace the sinc call by other weight calls or coefficients. For example, using those cubic coefficients, firstly you need to comment the sinc calls:

Code:
//float4 w = sinc(nb*s2, w5);

//w = sinc(nb, w8);
And put the new cubic weights directly:

Code:
float4 w = float4(-1.0/16.0, 9.0/16.0, 9.0/16.0, -1.0/16.0);
//float4 w = sinc(nb*s2, w5);

//w = sinc(nb, w8);
And that's it!

It works for any filter, even bilinear!

obs: it isn't totally accurate to use the same cubic coeffs to replace the second sinc call, though. For a totally accurate replacement, you should create a cubic function with the cubic calculations as in other cubic filters elsewhere. This I don't have at hand.

Last edited by Hyllian; 14th June 2015 at 21:25.
Hyllian 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 19:30.


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