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. |
14th June 2015, 16:40 | #31021 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 496
|
Quote:
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. |
|
14th June 2015, 16:42 | #31022 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 77
|
Quote:
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... |
|
14th June 2015, 17:07 | #31023 | Link |
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. |
14th June 2015, 17:20 | #31024 | Link |
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. |
14th June 2015, 17:37 | #31026 | Link |
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. |
14th June 2015, 17:58 | #31027 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
|
Quote:
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. |
|
14th June 2015, 18:12 | #31029 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
|
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.
|
14th June 2015, 18:47 | #31031 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 496
|
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. |
14th June 2015, 19:22 | #31033 | Link |
Registered User
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. |
14th June 2015, 19:25 | #31034 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
|
|
14th June 2015, 19:36 | #31035 | Link |
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. |
14th June 2015, 20:02 | #31037 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
|
Quote:
|
|
14th June 2015, 20:23 | #31038 | Link |
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. |
14th June 2015, 21:01 | #31039 | Link | ||||||||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
clown.png -|- lighthouse.png -|- lighthouseTop.png Quote:
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? |
||||||||||
14th June 2015, 21:21 | #31040 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
|
Quote:
Code:
//float4 w = sinc(nb*s2, w5); //w = sinc(nb, w8); 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); 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. |
|
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|