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 31st December 2014, 12:48   #27921  |  Link
nekromantik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaq View Post
Set player to show picture in original size.
Make sure madVR is set to OD dithering and try some lite chroma upsampler like Bicubic 75 with AR uncheked.
Check queues values.
I dont want to reduce the quality of upscaled 720P videos however.
I may be forced to not use madvr for 4k videos due to the optimus bug.
I can get it to use the Nvidia chip but then I get black screen.
nekromantik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2014, 13:13   #27922  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekromantik View Post
Im using NND13 16 neurons.
Just checked and there is no gpu load on my GTX860m.
I got optimus laptop and tried everything on this forum to get it to use the dedicated card but still nothing apparently. I thought I had fixed it but new driver update must have messed it up again.
have a look here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...17#post1271417

just create a profile where nnedi3 is not used with UHD content.

the hd 4600 shouldn't be able to use nnedi3 in realtime...
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2014, 13:26   #27923  |  Link
nekromantik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
have a look here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...17#post1271417

just create a profile where nnedi3 is not used with UHD content.

the hd 4600 shouldn't be able to use nnedi3 in realtime...
thanks I will have a look.

the nvidia is deffo not being used. In 720P content I get 15 to 20 ms render times with NNEDi3 but gpu-z gtx860 clock speed is always 230mhz.
nekromantik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2014, 16:59   #27924  |  Link
Anima123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 504
I remember there's a way to modify the registry to force madVR to use nVidia GPU with Optimus on some notebooks, but I cannot find it anymore.

Can someone give me a hint?

Happy new year to everyone here in this forum.
Anima123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2014, 17:38   #27925  |  Link
nekromantik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anima123 View Post
I remember there's a way to modify the registry to force madVR to use nVidia GPU with Optimus on some notebooks, but I cannot find it anymore.

Can someone give me a hint?

Happy new year to everyone here in this forum.
Its HKEYCURRENTUSER/Software/madshi/madvr/OpenCL
create new key under there called forceVendor and REG_SZ value of nVidia.
nekromantik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 12:42   #27926  |  Link
ash925
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Seventh Dimension
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekromantik View Post
thanks I will have a look.

the nvidia is deffo not being used. In 720P content I get 15 to 20 ms render times with NNEDi3 but gpu-z gtx860 clock speed is always 230mhz.
Hi, if you are using mpc-hc with madvr, then just rename it something else and add the executable in nvdia control panel.
Madvr will run on nvidia GPU.
ash925 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 14:50   #27927  |  Link
nekromantik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash925 View Post
Hi, if you are using mpc-hc with madvr, then just rename it something else and add the executable in nvdia control panel.
Madvr will run on nvidia GPU.
Happy New Year

I have done that but getting the dreaded black screen whatever I do.
Im not sure which driver version was confirmed to work with 860m optimus.
nekromantik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 18:01   #27928  |  Link
XMonarchY
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but there is this new awesome Philips BDM4065UC 40" 4K UHD monitor with 5000:1 static contrast ratio, good response times, 24ms input lag, and excellent color accuracy after calibration. I already have my most-awesome Eizo Foris FG2421 (lucky unit, won VA panel lottery!) for games, but I want this Philips monitor for film playback. I, however, have never seen 1080p content upscaled to 4K through madVR, using the highest quality madVR settings (NNEDI3 chroma & image upscaling/doubling/quadrupling, dithering, etc). Would 1080p content rendered+upscaled to 4K with madVR on 4K monitor/HDTV look better or worse than 1080p content rendered with madVR on 1080p display with identical specs & similar settings? By how much? Would such a monitor be worth it as a TV for 1080p material with its 4K native resolution? I do realize its not true UHD because it is only capable of sRGB/Rec.709 as far as colorspace goes, but 4K is real and of course it uses 4:4:4 subsampling.

Side-question: Is FRC worth anything for an 8bit display (8bit+FRC) ? Can it actually display 10bit content more accurately than 8bit-only display? Is there a way to test whether a display is 8bit-only or 8bit+FRC?

Last edited by XMonarchY; 1st January 2015 at 18:25.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 18:14   #27929  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,342
Properly upscaled 1080p to 4K on a native 4K screen should look slightly better than on a native 1080p screen, assuming the screen is big enough and/or you sit close enough anyway.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 19:23   #27930  |  Link
Fullmetal Encoder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
Properly upscaled 1080p to 4K on a native 4K screen should look slightly better than on a native 1080p screen, assuming the screen is big enough and/or you sit close enough anyway.
How could an upscaled image look better than the original source material at native resolution? Every time I upscale a lower resolution source to 1080 on my monitor it looks worse with at least a loss in sharpness. I'd expect that to be magnified even further going from 1080 to 4k. That's why I've always shied away from considering anything above standard HD for a monitor and have felt the move to 4k wasn't worth very much.

It's interesting that XMonarchY mentioned the Eizo. I was thinking about one of the upper end CG's for viewing SD and HD content (among other things).

Quote:
Originally Posted by XMonarchY View Post
Side-question: Is FRC worth anything for an 8bit display (8bit+FRC) ?
Well, as long as the hardware/software works as intended it should be able to present 10-bit transparently to the eye due to the nature of how Frame Rate Control works since it takes advantage of limitations in human visual perception. Because of those visual limitations testing whether a display is using FRC would probably require specialized equipment and the conclusion would be pretty much academic. At least I don't know of any way to test it.
Fullmetal Encoder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 20:17   #27931  |  Link
e-t172
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetal Encoder View Post
How could an upscaled image look better than the original source material at native resolution? Every time I upscale a lower resolution source to 1080 on my monitor it looks worse with at least a loss in sharpness.
Because the best image quality is obtained with a gaussian point spread function, which is the ideal goal for an image upscaler. Fixed-pixel displays such as LCDs typically have square ("box") PSFs, which is the exact opposite and possibly the worst PSF there is. For these displays, upscaling to a higher resolution is likely to look better than native resolution (picture size being equal, of course), because you get less of the square PSF of the screen and more of the near-gaussian PSF of the upscaling filter. A counter-example is CRTs which have a naturally gaussian PSF.

That said, for this to make a difference, you need to sit close to the screen, otherwise visual acuity is not enough to resolve the difference in high-frequency spatial information.

If you're not convinced, I would encourage you to read Poynton's excellent explanation on the subject.

If you're observing a loss of sharpness, you might want to adjust the parameters of your upscaling filter to compensate for it.

Last edited by e-t172; 1st January 2015 at 20:21.
e-t172 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 20:19   #27932  |  Link
wOxxOm
Oz of the zOo
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 208
FRC status should be mentioned in the manufacturer's specs on panelook.com site (pdf scan), if you know the internal panel's model number - could be Innolux, anyway all the 40" 4K panels listed on panelook are 8bit+FRC.

Last edited by wOxxOm; 2nd January 2015 at 09:45.
wOxxOm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 21:33   #27933  |  Link
Qaq
AV heretic
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetal Encoder View Post
How could an upscaled image look better than the original source material at native resolution?
Set a 1080 display to 720 res and start a 720 movie. Now set display back to 1080 and start a 720 movie upscaled to 1080. See?
Qaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 21:46   #27934  |  Link
Fullmetal Encoder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by e-t172 View Post
Because the best image quality is obtained with a gaussian point spread function, which is the ideal goal for an image upscaler. Fixed-pixel displays such as LCDs typically have square ("box") PSFs, which is the exact opposite and possibly the worst PSF there is. For these displays, upscaling to a higher resolution is likely to look better than native resolution (picture size being equal, of course), because you get less of the square PSF of the screen and more of the near-gaussian PSF of the upscaling filter. A counter-example is CRTs which have a naturally gaussian PSF.

That said, for this to make a difference, you need to sit close to the screen, otherwise visual acuity is not enough to resolve the difference in high-frequency spatial information.
Interesting, so, if I follow you correctly, you are saying that the higher pixel density of a 4K panel allows the panel to more accurately display the higher quality output of the upscaling filter due to the nature of the filter's near-gaussian PSF? So, essentially, the panel acts as a sort of lens which filters the image being displayed. And the quality of the image which reaches our eyes is limited by and can only be as good as is permitted by that filter. And the panel having a square PSF is the weakest link in the chain.

It should be possible then to come up with an objective way to gauge the relative benefit of moving from a smaller screen to a larger screen given that we know the screen sizes and resolutions. I'm thinking that a larger panel would negate the benefit of the higher resolution somewhat. Maybe taking the ratio of each panel's resolution to it's size in comparison would provide a better answer to XMonarchY's question.

XMonarchY it may be wise to take into consideration the nature of the display you linked (that is a PV panel and perhaps more susceptible to gamma shift) as well as how close you will be to the screen. I would expect the gamma shift to be worse the closer you are.
Fullmetal Encoder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 21:57   #27935  |  Link
Shiandow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by e-t172 View Post
Because the best image quality is obtained with a gaussian point spread function, which is the ideal goal for an image upscaler.
I'm not sure why you think a gaussian PSF is the ideal goal for an image upscaler. If that was the case then using a Gaussian kernel for upscaling would be ideal, but that tends to result in images which are quite blurry.

As far as I could find the article you linked didn't claim that Gaussian was best, just that it was better than a box filter.

Last edited by Shiandow; 1st January 2015 at 22:15.
Shiandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 22:06   #27936  |  Link
Fullmetal Encoder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaq View Post
Set a 1080 display to 720 res and start a 720 movie. Now set display back to 1080 and start a 720 movie upscaled to 1080. See?
And when I do, the 1:1 image looks superior to my eyes. That's what I'm trying to reconcile.
Fullmetal Encoder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 22:26   #27937  |  Link
e-t172
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetal Encoder View Post
It should be possible then to come up with an objective way to gauge the relative benefit of moving from a smaller screen to a larger screen given that we know the screen sizes and resolutions. I'm thinking that a larger panel would negate the benefit of the higher resolution somewhat. Maybe taking the ratio of each panel's resolution to it's size in comparison would provide a better answer to XMonarchY's question.
The absolute limit of human visual acuity is 0.5 minute of arc, though 1 minute of arc seems more realistic especially with the lower background luminance in a home theater scenario. If you sit far enough from the screen that the pixel size if less than 1 minute of arc (which is a typical home theater best practice), you won't be able to see the difference between a box PSF and a gaussian PSF, because the distance between the centers of the pixels will be less than your visual acuity can resolve.

For this reason, this stuff only makes a difference if you're sitting very close to the screen (especially in 4K!). Basically, if you sit too close to a box PSF screen (e.g. LCD at native resolution), it will appear pixelated; if you sit too close to a gaussian (or near-gaussian) PSF screen (e.g. 1080p upscaled to 4K), it will appear blurry. The latter is preferable to the former.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiandow View Post
I'm not sure why you think a gaussian PSF is the ideal goal for an image upscaler. If that was the case then using a Gaussian kernel for upscaling would be ideal, but that tends to result in images which are quite blurry.

As far as I could find the article you linked didn't claim that Gaussian was best, just that it was better than a box filter.
True. Trying to determine the best PSF is akin to trying to determine the best upscaling filter, which often results in heated discussions There's no debate about box being the worst though. If I'm not mistaken it's mathematically equivalent to nearest neighbor upscaling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetal Encoder View Post
And when I do, the 1:1 image looks superior to my eyes. That's what I'm trying to reconcile.
I'm not sure what you're doing, but if you want to compare 1:1 to upscaled in a meaningful way, you need to keep the image size the same. Which is impossible to do unless you have two similarly sized screens with different native resolutions. Or maybe you could try using one screen and moving back and forth to keep apparent size the same, but that doesn't sound very scientific!
e-t172 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 23:31   #27938  |  Link
Qaq
AV heretic
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetal Encoder View Post
And when I do, the 1:1 image looks superior to my eyes. That's what I'm trying to reconcile.
I see. From your viewing distance you don't see bigger pixels on 720. And there are also no upscaling artifacts. Thats fine. But what about lower resolution? You won't set your display to 540, will you?
Personally I hate upscaling artifacts myself. But I can't stand to bigger pixels on 720 display even more. Thats why I always prefer 1080 if possible, even for WEB-DLs. But if I can't get 1080, I'm fine with upscale.
Qaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2015, 23:55   #27939  |  Link
Fullmetal Encoder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by e-t172 View Post
The absolute limit of human visual acuity is 0.5 minute of arc, though 1 minute of arc seems more realistic especially with the lower background luminance in a home theater scenario. If you sit far enough from the screen that the pixel size if less than 1 minute of arc (which is a typical home theater best practice), you won't be able to see the difference between a box PSF and a gaussian PSF, because the distance between the centers of the pixels will be less than your visual acuity can resolve.

For this reason, this stuff only makes a difference if you're sitting very close to the screen (especially in 4K!). Basically, if you sit too close to a box PSF screen (e.g. LCD at native resolution), it will appear pixelated; if you sit too close to a gaussian (or near-gaussian) PSF screen (e.g. 1080p upscaled to 4K), it will appear blurry. The latter is preferable to the former.
Yes, but therein lies the rub. If I get 40 inch 4K panel and have to sit so far away from it that the blurriness isn't an issue, then will it be bigger in my field of view (and better) than a smaller panel would be if I were to sit up close to it? If not then where is the benefit in higher resolutions and larger screens? Just buy a really high quality, color accurate 24-25" panel with good uniformity and sit right up close to it. Though all panel sizes being equal I can understand the benefit of higher resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e-t172 View Post
I'm not sure what you're doing, but if you want to compare 1:1 to upscaled in a meaningful way, you need to keep the image size the same. Which is impossible to do unless you have two similarly sized screens with different native resolutions. Or maybe you could try using one screen and moving back and forth to keep apparent size the same, but that doesn't sound very scientific!
Yes, the best I can do is set my player to 1:1 then watch it upscaled.
Fullmetal Encoder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2015, 09:29   #27940  |  Link
e-t172
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetal Encoder View Post
Yes, but therein lies the rub. If I get 40 inch 4K panel and have to sit so far away from it that the blurriness isn't an issue, then will it be bigger in my field of view (and better) than a smaller panel would be if I were to sit up close to it?
Since visual acuity is expressed in angle units, it follows that the optimal field of view depends only on resolution, not screen size. This means the optimal field of view for 1080p is 32°, and for UHD (~4K) it's - no surprise there - 64°. You can watch 1080p on a >32° field of view if you upscale it on a 4K monitor; you won't get any more detail, but at least it won't look pixelated. If you do the same on a 1080p native monitor with a box PSF, then you won't get any more detail and it will look pixelated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetal Encoder View Post
If not then where is the benefit in higher resolutions and larger screens?
The benefit of higher resolutions (screen size being equal) is, you get a more detailed and less pixelated image, assuming you sit close enough to the screen for it to make a difference (~1 MOA/pixel).

The benefit of larger screens (resolution being equal) is, you get to sit farther away from the screen and still enjoy the same level of detail.

Last edited by e-t172; 2nd January 2015 at 09:31.
e-t172 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 14:26.


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