madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[Anime Viewer]

Originally Posted by madshi

Feedback
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!

I realized one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post on my thoughts and testing of finesharp: On my Optimus system if I use any of the FineSharp modes in upscaling refinement combined with having image doubling enabled while using my Intel GPU the screen has spasams of what look like flashes of repeated frames (but it doesn't report any delayed frames). A ton of presentation glitches occur along with a handful of dropped frames. (Presentation glitches far out number the amount of dropped frames reported in that same time period). Using the Nvidia GPU no such problem occurs. This is another reason why I prefer using the FineSharp in image enhancement as opposed to the FineSharp in upscaling refinement. With the the FineSharp in image enhancement I can combine it with image doubling and playback using the Intel without any problems.

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.

[MysteryX]

madshi, did you remove the feature that displays the volume level when scrolling up and down with the mouse?

[MysteryX]

Originally Posted by MysteryX

I was wondering the same question, and then tried to use only SuperRes for anti-ringing. It did NOT remove ringing resulting from upscaling.

I withdraw this.

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.

[SecurityBunny]

Originally Posted by ryrynz

Just download the 32 bit version. Much faster that way. You could've done that and been posting a reply rather than asking and waiting for something that might not come.

For all you could know, the issue may lie within the 64 bit operation since that is what I use and originally tested with. The last test build madshi provided to me had a 64 bit version, but I digress.

Originally Posted by madshi

Sorry, this was a bad one. Use this instead:

http://madshi.net/madVR889test2.rar

And don't use error diffusion in this build.

Version shows 0.88.9 when checking with this build. Queues unfortunately still do not fill with D3D11 and 10-bit output. D3D9 with 10-bit output, queues fill.

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.

[ryrynz]

Originally Posted by SecurityBunny

For all you could know, the issue may lie within the 64 bit operation

The likelihood of that is extremely low. But then if you'd just downloaded the 32 bit version and tested then you'd know that too.

[kalston]

Originally Posted by MysteryX

madshi, did you remove the feature that displays the volume level when scrolling up and down with the mouse?

Volume level display? That sounds like a media player thing.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Shiandow

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).

Ok, thanks.

Originally Posted by TheLion

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.

Thanks. So for "image enhancements" you would suggest a strength of 2.0 for the "high" preset, using the default "thinning"? Have you played with the "thinning" a bit to find out whether you like it at its default value or slightly different maybe?

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?

Originally Posted by baii

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.

Do you dislike linear light only for upscaling refinement, or also for image enhancement? Do you have a specific sample where linear light makes FineSharp look worse? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

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.

Can you explain why you like it better/worse in either of these sections? In which way does it look better in image enhancement? In in which way does it look worse in upscaling refinement? Have you tested FineSharp alone (without SuperRes etc) in upscaling refinement? Do you still dislike linear light there? Or maybe it's only when used together with SuperRes?

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

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?

Not really. Try this image:

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.

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

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.

So you'd suggest 2.0 for "high" and 0.5 for "low"? Can you play with "thinning" a bit to see if you like those values to be changed in any way for high or low?

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

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.

You mean using FineSharp in image enhancements, and then afterwards doubling? What kind of effect does doubling have on FineSharp in your experience?

Originally Posted by MysteryX

madshi, did you remove the feature that displays the volume level when scrolling up and down with the mouse?

I've got nothing to do with such controls. Never had.

Originally Posted by MysteryX

I withdraw this.

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.

Ok, thanks. madVR's anti-ring applies to both chroma and luma, if that's your question.

Originally Posted by SecurityBunny

Version shows 0.88.9 when checking with this build. Queues unfortunately still do not fill with D3D11 and 10-bit output. D3D9 with 10-bit output, queues fill.

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.

Does this one fix the issue? It's based on the latest v0.88.11:

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.

[GCRaistlin]

There's another annoying issue that is present in all madVR builds I've used so far. The problem is that it should be very hard to reproduce.
I use Mozilla Firefox, and there are always a lot of tabs open there (185 for now). When playing a video with madVR on the 2nd monitor Firefox sometimes crashes, sometimes behaves weird (only the window title is displayed, the rest is "transparent" - the contents of a background window is visible). I don't know if this is caused either by some of the opened tabs, or by playing on the 2nd monitor, or even by madVR (EVR CP looks really ugly on the projector + 140" screen, and the issue is too unstable and relative rarely appearing to perform a good test). But it does exist.

[Anime Viewer]

For reference when I refer to FineSharp (i) below I am referring to FineSharp in Image Enhancements, and when I refer to FineSharp (u) I am referring to FineSharp in Upscaling Refinement. Its easier that typing each phrase over and over again.

Originally Posted by madshi

Can you explain why you like it better/worse in either of these sections? In which way does it look better in image enhancement? In in which way does it look worse in upscaling refinement? Have you tested FineSharp alone (without SuperRes etc) in upscaling refinement? Do you still dislike linear light there? Or maybe it's only when used together with SuperRes?

The main benefit I see from using the Image Enhancement version as opposed to the Upscaling Refinement version is that the Image Enhancement version doesn't increase render times. That makes it more problem free (more universally usable) when it comes to using it across different gpus. Using the Upscaling Enhancement version the render times increase, and it can drag down a weak gpu.

The tests I have done when I made the second report (above) and this one were done without SuperRes, so only the first test I did involved using SuperRes in combination with FineSharp. As I reported in the first test report I felt that if one is combining FineSharp with SuperRes they seem to work better if they are both used from the Upscaling Refinement area.

When enabling Linear Light in FineSharp (i) I notice a significant change in shading and around black areas on the screen. Its a look I prefer having enabled as opposed to disabled in the (i) version. Linear Light in the (u) version has much less (an almost unperceptive) effect. Enabling Linear Light in the (u) version makes it look like a very small (insignificant) increase in sharpness/jaggedness. Very much insignificant in my view, and I'd have no objection to it enabled by default when used by the (u) version. I don't notice the change in blacks and shading with the (u) version like I do with the (i) version.

Originally Posted by madshi

Not really. Try this image:

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.

I'm having a hard time seeing a difference. As I'm toggling things off and on I thought I may have been seeing a small change in the roof edges, but then when I toggle again I don't think I see any change, so I'm not sure if I'm seeing any effect from the repair feature. With that being said if its believed a 1.0 value improves things then I say go ahead and set it to that. I don't see anything getting worse or negatively effected by having it set to 1.0, so I see no reason not to have it default to that value.

Originally Posted by madshi

So you'd suggest 2.0 for "high" and 0.5 for "low"? Can you play with "thinning" a bit to see if you like those values to be changed in any way for high or low?

If Image Doubling is combined with FineSharp I think higher settings can be used with less negative effects (artifacts). Increasing the thinning setting gives the impression the image is composed of more tiny dots/circles and looks to increase sharpness slightly. In FineSharp (i) it higher settings (beyond default) give (for lack of a better term) a bit of an artificial look. I like the look of the sharpening increasing the setting gives when used in FineSharp (u). When I have more time I'll try to spend more time adjusting the thinning settings and see if there are certain values that appeal to me in each type of FineSharp situation.

Originally Posted by madshi

You mean using FineSharp in image enhancements, and then afterwards doubling? What kind of effect does doubling have on FineSharp in your experience?

Doubling smooths out the jaggedness (alaising) I see that is created when using FineSharp especially at the FineSharp's higher strength settings. Interestingly enough I feel like I see it having different effects depending on which FineSharp it is used with. When using Doubling with the FineSharp in image enhancements it greatly reduces the amount of artifacts I see.
When using Doubling with the FineSharp in upscaling refinement it smooths out jaggedness of alaising lines. (When comparing FineSharp (i) to FineSharp (u) at the same strengths FineSharp (u) is more of a blurry image with far less artifacts. To a degree Doubling may be reducing artifacts with FineSharp (u) as well, and reducing sharping edges with FineSharp (i), but given that the pre-doubled image was already pretty smooth with FineSharp (i), and the pre-doubled image with FineSharp (u) was pretty artifact free before doubling the effects are less noticeable). Combining both FineSharps (aka enabling both) doesn't appear to look too bad as long as both are reduced in strength by half (causing the total strength to FineSharp to remain the same when all is said and done), but then you bring in the possibility of FineSharp (u) increasing render speeds and dragging down weaker gpu.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by GCRaistlin

There's another annoying issue that is present in all madVR builds I've used so far. The problem is that it should be very hard to reproduce.
I use Mozilla Firefox, and there are always a lot of tabs open there (185 for now). When playing a video with madVR on the 2nd monitor Firefox sometimes crashes, sometimes behaves weird (only the window title is displayed, the rest is "transparent" - the contents of a background window is visible). I don't know if this is caused either by some of the opened tabs, or by playing on the 2nd monitor, or even by madVR (EVR CP looks really ugly on the projector + 140" screen, and the issue is too unstable and relative rarely appearing to perform a good test). But it does exist.

It sounds to me like you are running out of memory. If you either leave task manager open, or open it once you encounter the problem how much memory does it say your browser is using? How much memory do you have in your system? I've seen similar effects to what you describe when people run out of memory. The fault is with the browser and it leaking memory as opposed to madVR. If you type "about:memory" in your address bar you can use the buttons under free memory to reclaim some of it. Tabs that are running Adobe, Java, and video plugins (even if you don't have any of them actively playing) can be huge memory leaks. You can try FireFox developer edition, and see if that works better - in my testing it leaks far less memory. Finally as it relates to madVR you can reduce the queue settings, so that it uses less memory (and frees up more for your browser), but doing that may have a negative effect on your video playback. Its something you'd have to experiment with yourself, and determine if it makes things better or worse.

[GCRaistlin]

madshi, should I create a ticket on the bug tracker for my request about the ability to change the refresh rate from the icon menu?

[GCRaistlin]

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

How much memory do you have in your system?

3 GB. I'll check how much memory Firefox use next time I'll experience the issue.

[SecurityBunny]

Originally Posted by madshi

Does this one fix the issue? It's based on the latest v0.88.11:

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.

That does seem to fix the issue. Queues fill fine with D3D11 10-bit output. The only issue I'm able to tell is with D3D11, present queue is 15-15/15 while on D3D9 it bounces between 15-16/16 | 16-16/16. So you seem to lose one prepresented frame with D3D11.

Unfortunately I don't believe my monitor supports 23/24p display modes since it switches back to 59.95 hz after going fullscreen for a few seconds. But for those few seconds testing 24hz (display reporting 24.00 in madvr), queues fill all the way with prepresented at 14-15/15. Testing 23hz (presuming you don't mean 23.976hz) queues did not fill but the display was outputting 22.99hz.

Testing 0.88.8 at 24hz, queues fill perfectly fine. But similar to above, D3D11 seems to lose a prepresented frame in present queue when compared to D3D9.

All testing done with Ordered Dithering with both options enabled.

Edit: Probably doesn't mean much but with the test build, D3D11 10-bit, present queue displays 14-15/15 in windowed mode, whereas fullscreen it is completely stable at 15-15/15.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by GCRaistlin

There's another annoying issue that is present in all madVR builds I've used so far. The problem is that it should be very hard to reproduce.
I use Mozilla Firefox, and there are always a lot of tabs open there (185 for now). When playing a video with madVR on the 2nd monitor Firefox sometimes crashes, sometimes behaves weird (only the window title is displayed, the rest is "transparent" - the contents of a background window is visible). I don't know if this is caused either by some of the opened tabs, or by playing on the 2nd monitor, or even by madVR (EVR CP looks really ugly on the projector + 140" screen, and the issue is too unstable and relative rarely appearing to perform a good test). But it does exist.

Doesn't sound like madVR would be at fault.

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

I'm having a hard time seeing a difference. As I'm toggling things off and on I thought I may have been seeing a small change in the roof edges, but then when I toggle again I don't think I see any change, so I'm not sure if I'm seeing any effect from the repair feature. With that being said if its believed a 1.0 value improves things then I say go ahead and set it to that. I don't see anything getting worse or negatively effected by having it set to 1.0, so I see no reason not to have it default to that value.

Ok. Anybody else objecting to setting "repair" to 1.0?

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

When I have more time I'll try to spend more time adjusting the thinning settings and see if there are certain values that appeal to me in each type of FineSharp situation.

Would appreciate that, thanks.

Originally Posted by Anime Viewer

When using Doubling with the FineSharp in upscaling refinement it smooths out jaggedness of alaising lines.

That's what "repair" also is supposed to help with, I think.

Originally Posted by GCRaistlin

madshi, should I create a ticket on the bug tracker for my request about the ability to change the refresh rate from the icon menu?

The bug tracker is only for bugs, not for feature wishes. About your feature wish see my reply here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...43#post1721943

Originally Posted by SecurityBunny

That does seem to fix the issue. Queues fill fine with D3D11 10-bit output. The only issue I'm able to tell is with D3D11, present queue is 15-15/15 while on D3D9 it bounces between 15-16/16 | 16-16/16. So you seem to lose one prepresented frame with D3D11.

Unfortunately I don't believe my monitor supports 23/24p display modes since it switches back to 59.95 hz after going fullscreen for a few seconds. But for those few seconds testing 24hz (display reporting 24.00 in madvr), queues fill all the way with prepresented at 14-15/15. Testing 23hz (presuming you don't mean 23.976hz) queues did not fill but the display was outputting 22.99hz.

Testing 0.88.8 at 24hz, queues fill perfectly fine. But similar to above, D3D11 seems to lose a prepresented frame in present queue when compared to D3D9.

If your monitor doesn't support 23/24p, then you shouldn't see any image at all. You do seem to see an image. Not sure why it's switching back to 59p, though.

What is important to me is if v0.88.8 is in any way better than the test build or not. If v0.88.8 is not better (not at any refresh rate), then we can consider the problem in v0.88.9+ fixed, and we can stop investigating. You're saying v0.88.8 filled the queue at 24hz, and the test build, too. But the test build doesn't seem to fill the queues at 23hz. So does v0.88.8 do that?

[Hyllian]

Hi, sorry for hijacking the thread a bit. For some time I have developed some shaders for other systems (emulators) and would like to know how one of them compares to the shaders used to upscale videos. My shaders are used primary for games, but I think some of them could be used for videos too.

What do you think about the quality of this 4x upscaled image?

http://i.imgur.com/d0usxSP.png

[madshi]

@Hyllian,

that looks quite nice, actually. Compared to NNEDI3, I would say in some areas it's a bit better (e.g. the wheels of the white van) and in others a bit worse. However, I do see some ringing in your image. Did you sharpen it with a bad sharpener? Or does your scaler introduce ringing itself? FWIW, here's what NNEDI3 does, without and with sharpening:

NNEDI3 -|- NNEDI3 - sharpened

What kind of algorithm does your shader use? How fast is it?

[TheLion]

Originally Posted by madshi

Thanks. So for "image enhancements" you would suggest a strength of 2.0 for the "high" preset, using the default "thinning"? Have you played with the "thinning" a bit to find out whether you like it at its default value or slightly different maybe?

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?

For FineSharp as Image Enhancement i would suggest:

Preset:Strength= low:0.5 medium:1.0 high:2.0
Always with linear light ON

Thinning seems fine at default for all three modes, but it's very hard to come up with a preference for me I am afraid - so I would certainly not object when this parameter is changed from default. I guess it would seem logical that the "optimum" thinning setting changes as well with different strength presets.

Mode 3 is certainly not "night and day" but in my opinion the difference is relevant enough to make it the default, with mode 1 or 2 perhaps a new "trade quality for performance" checkbox. I know you hate additional options, but madVR is all about best quality first, afterall

[Hyllian]

Originally Posted by madshi

@Hyllian,

that looks quite nice, actually. Compared to NNEDI3, I would say in some areas it's a bit better (e.g. the wheels of the white van) and in others a bit worse. However, I do see some ringing in your image. Did you sharpen it with a bad sharpener? Or does your scaler introduce ringing itself? FWIW, here's what NNEDI3 does, without and with sharpening:

NNEDI3 -|- NNEDI3 - sharpened

What kind of algorithm does your shader use? How fast is it?

To tell you the truth, my algorithm is only for 2x, as NNEDI3 or NEDI. I have used my other jinc2 shader to go from 2x to 4x. And in fact it has some ringing, though most of them come from the jinc2 pass (the last pass). I didn't use any kind of sharpener and maybe it could improve the image a bit more.

My algorithm is called super-xbr, as it was derived from the standard xbr algorithm I already had developed for cartoon games some years ago and is largely used in emulators. The super-xbr is more focused in high color gradient images than cartoons, so I think it could be good for videos. For now, it's only in cg shader language and available for emulators like Retroarch. The sources are in this repository: https://github.com/libretro/common-s.../xbr/super-xbr

Unfortunately, I don't know other shaders languages to port it, but maybe you could port it and test in madVR or other players/systems. It's a bit less aggressive then the NEDI shader.


If I disable the anti-ringing I get this: http://i.imgur.com/bDA74E2.png

[SecurityBunny]

Originally Posted by madshi

If your monitor doesn't support 23/24p, then you shouldn't see any image at all. You do seem to see an image. Not sure why it's switching back to 59p, though.

What is important to me is if v0.88.8 is in any way better than the test build or not. If v0.88.8 is not better (not at any refresh rate), then we can consider the problem in v0.88.9+ fixed, and we can stop investigating. You're saying v0.88.8 filled the queue at 24hz, and the test build, too. But the test build doesn't seem to fill the queues at 23hz. So does v0.88.8 do that?

At 23hz (22.99hz), with 0.88.8, queues seem to fill. Not as stable / completely filled as 59/24hz (15/15 queue size), but filled. Numbers like 12-15/15 for present queue, whereas the test build it is 2-8/15 for present queue.

So it seems odd integer refresh rates aren't fixed but 3:2 pulldown & 1:1 is fine?

[huhn]

Originally Posted by SecurityBunny

At 23hz (22.99hz), with 0.88.8, queues seem to fill. Not as stable / completely filled as 59/24hz (15/15 queue size), but filled. Numbers like 12-15/15 for present queue, whereas the test build it is 2-8/15 for present queue.

So it seems odd integer refresh rates aren't fixed but 3:2 pulldown & 1:1 is fine?

what? 23 hz is supposed to be 24000/1001 = ~23.976

[starla]

In case someone happens to have performance issues with madVR rendering (excluding cases where DXVA scaling seems to work) one thing that could cause it is a buggy motherboard bios.

Same HW, but different MB bios versions resulted quite different texture upload speeds:

A8R8G8B8 Texture speed test:
default: upload 17 fps, download 138 fps
dynamic: upload 9 fps, download 8 fps, trick download 121 fps

vs.

A8R8G8B8 Texture speed test:
default: upload 132 fps, download 167 fps
dynamic: upload 239 fps, download 9 fps, trick download 131 fps