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 20th October 2015, 16:27   #41  |  Link
lanzorg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bacondither View Post
New version 2015-09-23 released.

Tried optimizing some, it went faster for AMDs old VLIW gpus but slower for newer GCN. So that did not make it to this version.

The bilateral blur from the experimental version did better sometimes and worse other times. But the difference was so minimal and it was slower. So it's not included now.
Could you port this version to glsl?
lanzorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2015, 18:28   #42  |  Link
ts1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 70
glsl version here
This shader also requires floating point processing apparently.

Last edited by ts1; 26th October 2015 at 19:25.
ts1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2015, 19:26   #43  |  Link
vood007
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts1 View Post
Here is glsl version of this shader:
Pass 1
...
This shader also requires floating point processing apparently.
Thanks for this. May i request a glsl version of the old one pass version too? Its linked in the first posting.
vood007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2015, 22:01   #44  |  Link
ts1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 70
glsl version of Adaptive Sharpen

Last edited by ts1; 8th April 2016 at 15:28. Reason: Backported some things from 2-pass shaders, compatible with linear-scaling/sigmoid-upscaling, added anti-ringing
ts1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2015, 05:00   #45  |  Link
vood007
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts1 View Post
vood007
Code:
// Copyright (c) 2015, bacondither
// All rights reserved.
...
Thanks again. Works fine under Linux with MPV.
vood007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2015, 15:33   #46  |  Link
bacondither
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
@bacondither, can you double check AdaptiveSharpen with this test image?

http://madshi.net/FineSharpTest3.png

Last time I checked, AdaptiveSharpen makes this image brighter. Which is what most sharpeners do, so it's not surprising. But ideally, that should not happen. Maybe you can work on that? E.g. by using linear light in some parts of your algorithm? Or maybe by running a second pass which "repairs" modified brightness?

Thanks!
I agree that in some situations local contrast can be increased too much, but sometimes it should get brighter.
For example, if you blur the example image with a gaussian filter or a median filter it gets darker, "unblurring" it then should then make it look brighter.
But the original example image is pretty sharp already, increasing the local contrast/acutance a lot does not look that good in that example.

I have not found a satisfactory solution yet that does not compromise other situations. Sometime in the future i'm going to try testing a third "repair" pass.

I'm pretty sure i'll get some other ideas while in the shower or something...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ts1 View Post
glsl version here
This shader also requires floating point processing apparently.
Just had a quick look, i can't understand why is the inputs into tanh(x) is clamped to -+20. That could lead to some screwy results.
bacondither is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2015, 15:38   #47  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,235
oooh new test version, thanks
burfadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2015, 16:08   #48  |  Link
ts1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 70
That is not my port but one of mpv's developers. We made ports in the same day
ts1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2015, 16:23   #49  |  Link
bacondither
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts1 View Post
That is not my port but one of mpv's developers. We made ports in the same day
Ah, okay.

I don't have MPV ready for testing now, but did some tests on it a while ago on ubuntu. Could not get some script for switching display frequencies to work as i wanted.
bacondither is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2015, 16:39   #50  |  Link
ts1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 70
Windows builds available also. Just create "portable_config" folder next to mpv.exe with your shaders and mpv.conf with content something like:
Code:
vo=opengl-hq:fbo-format=rgba16f:post-shaders="~~/adaptive-sharpen-pass1.glsl,~~/adaptive-sharpen-pass2.glsl"
ts1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2015, 17:31   #51  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by bacondither View Post
For example, if you blur the example image with a gaussian filter or a median filter it gets darker
Does it, though, when doing the blurring in linear light? Which is how blurring should ideally be done.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2015, 01:35   #52  |  Link
bacondither
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Does it, though, when doing the blurring in linear light? Which is how blurring should ideally be done.
Yes, forgot that my image editor did blurring in gamma light. Blurred it in linear light and the apparent brightness was then about the same as the original.

Did some tests and saw that doing the summation of the negative laplace vales in "fast" linear light did reduce the brightening effect.
Have not seen any negative effects of doing it that way yet.

Added it to the current experimental version.
Experimental - 2015-10-29

Last edited by bacondither; 30th October 2015 at 01:57.
bacondither is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2015, 03:19   #53  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,136
Great, thanks - any progress is welcome!

One other thing that I've noticed when comparing FineSharp with AdaptiveSharpen: They have a quite different look. FineSharp somehow makes lines (at least dark lines) appear thinner, while AdaptiveSharpen seems to have a certain tendency to make dark lines fatter. Personally, I like the look of thinner lines. Is that something that could maybe be improved in AdaptiveSharpen?
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2015, 21:02   #54  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by bacondither View Post
Added it to the current experimental version.
Experimental - 2015-10-29
Amazing, image brightness pretty much doesn't increase and it still looks as good as usual otherwise.

Yes, line thickening is noticeable, especially with cartoons. This can look nice with low strength after soft scaling algorithms, but with higher strength it gets a bit too obvious.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2015, 02:19   #55  |  Link
jewshawn2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 3
I can't seem to get any of the new 2 pass shaders to work with potplayer. However, the early single pass shader works fine.

I use the "Shader Stacker" but no matter what I do I end up with a green screen. But MPC-HC works perfectly fine.

I would much appreciate it if someone else can someone verify?

Last edited by jewshawn2; 6th November 2015 at 02:23.
jewshawn2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2015, 09:05   #56  |  Link
toniash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jewshawn2 View Post
I can't seem to get any of the new 2 pass shaders to work with potplayer. However, the early single pass shader works fine.

I use the "Shader Stacker" but no matter what I do I end up with a green screen. But MPC-HC works perfectly fine.

I would much appreciate it if someone else can someone verify?
In "trade quality for performance" you must UNTICK:
store custom pixel shader in 16 bit ...
use 10bit chroma ...
use 10bit image ...
run custom pixel shaders in video levels ...

hope it helps
toniash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2015, 11:47   #57  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
Not sure which version is used inside of MPC-BE currently but it does a great job at relatively low shader costs (~10% above the simpler ones)

Very impressive results even on rather complex textures but shimmering in high frequency skylines for example still seems to be a big problem at least in the version used inside of MPC-BE.

I use it as a very decent post resize pass solution, which works out for most different compressed MPEG content just great without oversharpen it to much that it feels odd







__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :)

It is about Time

Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late !

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004

Last edited by CruNcher; 6th November 2015 at 13:38.
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2015, 16:08   #58  |  Link
bacondither
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by jewshawn2 View Post
I can't seem to get any of the new 2 pass shaders to work with potplayer. However, the early single pass shader works fine.

I use the "Shader Stacker" but no matter what I do I end up with a green screen. But MPC-HC works perfectly fine.
If you use madvr as renderer you could also try unticking the "lose BTB and WTW if it improves performance"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CruNcher View Post
Not sure which version is used inside of MPC-BE currently
I think it uses the old one-pass 2015-06-25 one.

I could backport some things to the old one pass version and make it better for a very small performance cost.
bacondither is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2015, 16:13   #59  |  Link
bacondither
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 125
The new 2015-11-05 experimental should be a little bit faster then the 2015-10-29 one. ~1% to 2%.
bacondither is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th November 2015, 18:24   #60  |  Link
vood007
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bacondither View Post
I could backport some things to the old one pass version and make it better for a very small performance cost.
This would be awesome! I still use the older 1-pass version because it allows me to stay at the lowest power-state of my GFX.
vood007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adaptive sharpen, shader, sharpening

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 09:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.