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 > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Usage

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 25th May 2011, 11:56   #701  |  Link
Mini-Me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mounir View Post
I'm trying my script again right now with MT i'm not sure why VIt called the best settings "lossless" because it's not lossless for me , take a look:

Original:
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5138/originalrn.jpg
QTGMC:
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/8199/qtgmc.jpg

settings used:
MT("""QTGMC( "Slower", EdiThreads=1, TR2=1, SourceMatch=2, Lossless=2, Sharpness=0.2, EZKeepGrain=0.6 )""", threads=2,overlap=16)
As -Vit- and Didee said, a sample would be helpful to see what's going on here. I'm not even sure what kind of image comparison I'm looking at; it could be any one of these four:
  1. Woven frame and final frame: Assuming this is a pure interlaced source and QTGMC is being used correctly, there's a problem here. I don't think this is the case though.
  2. Bobbed field and final frame: If this is the case, it would be helpful to see the neighboring bobbed fields from the source too (or better yet, the source clip).
  3. Original separated field and supposedly (but obviously not) lossless counterpart from the final frame: Assuming this is a pure interlaced source and QTGMC is being used correctly, the last smoothing is doing more damage than I'd expect.
  4. Original separated field and generated pair from the final frame: This kind of comparison wouldn't really make any sense; it would be better to see the whole final frame.

A thought just came to me though: The temporal smooths in QTGMC might GREATLY benefit from "gamma-corrected" smoothing, when it comes to thin horizontal details. See here to get an idea of what I'm talking about. The basic idea is that at ordinary gammas, any kind of smoothing or averaging ends up reducing the overall luminosity of areas (the softened grill of the car has been darkened excessively). To correct for this, you would reduce the gamma, perform your operations, and increase the gamma again.

As a quick test to see if it might help, you could try sandwiching your QTGMC call between with two calls to levels or LaTo's Smoothlevels (the first reducing gamma and the second increasing it again). The optimal solution requires 10+ bit processing in Avisynth, but if the Smoothlevels solution makes the picture look better in the meantime, why not? If time is no object, you could even repair very subtle detail (least significant bits) lost in the gamma shifts by doing the following:
  • Run QTGMC normally and save the result as A.
  • Reduce source gamma, run QTGMC on darkened source, and increase the gamma of the result, and save the result as B.
  • Run some kind of repair filter that replaces pixels from B with pixels from A if they're in the same brightness neighborhood (within 1 or 2 luma or so). I could probably think of some hacky way to do this off the top of my head, but I don't want to embarrass myself in the presence of my betters.

Last edited by Mini-Me; 25th May 2011 at 12:10.
Mini-Me is offline  
Old 25th May 2011, 12:04   #702  |  Link
Didée
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,390
Regarding 'gamma correction' -- generally a good idea. But a simple un-gamma before QTGMC + re-gamma afterwards probably is no good idea. Besides of the 8bit problem, I assume that MVTools' motion search will not react very gracefully if ME is performed on a clip with linear gamma. If at all, then the motion search should be done on the normal input, and the gamma operations be done only in the parallel processing path ('super' clip & separate base clip for rendering).
__________________
- We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood -

My little flickr gallery. (Yes indeed, I do have hobbies other than digital video!)
Didée is offline  
Old 25th May 2011, 12:14   #703  |  Link
Mini-Me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didée View Post
Regarding 'gamma correction' -- generally a good idea. But a simple un-gamma before QTGMC + re-gamma afterwards probably is no good idea. Besides of the 8bit problem, I assume that MVTools' motion search will not react very gracefully if ME is performed on a clip with linear gamma. If at all, then the motion search should be done on the normal input, and the gamma operations be done only in the parallel processing path ('super' clip & separate base clip for rendering).
I never even thought about linear gamma making motion estimation's job harder, but by compressing the lower-mid range compared to usual, I guess it might. In that case, I may have finally found a use for supplying my own motion clip to QTGMC!

Actually, by the same token, would motion search possibly be better if performed on a clip with higher-than-usual gamma?

Last edited by Mini-Me; 25th May 2011 at 12:18.
Mini-Me is offline  
Old 25th May 2011, 12:15   #704  |  Link
javlak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 48
Hi. According to this, the RemoveGrainSSE3.dll bug has been fixed. What is the official QTGMC author's stance on this? Can we revert to RemoveGrainSSE3 or should we still continue to use RemoveGrainSSE2.dll?

And I do not wish to step on any toes or insult anyone, but I have downloaded pretty much every free filter/plugin from MSU. Even though Mounir talks about a payware filter, if their freeware is any measure, I can safely say that their quality cannot match anything the high-performance plugins avisynth can throw at them. The demo pictures they show on their website are nothing more than demo pictures, not real-life applications. Believe me, I've tried Boolet, FieldsKit, Topaz Enhance et al, and QTGMC leaves them far behind. Your particular case is, as others have already mentioned quite difficult for any deinterlacer.
javlak is offline  
Old 25th May 2011, 13:30   #705  |  Link
-Vit-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 448
The fixed version of RemoveGrain has some changed and undocumented functionality. It comes with no source code. So it can't be recommended. In the last version with source code there is exactly one line of difference between SSE2 and SSE3 versions. It won't make a difference.

I tend to agree regarding the MSU plugins. Whilst the guys seem to know what they're doing, the plugins they do release are not very special. Their Video Quality Measurement tool is quite handy though.
-Vit- is offline  
Old 25th May 2011, 17:24   #706  |  Link
aegisofrime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by javlak View Post
Hi. According to this, the RemoveGrainSSE3.dll bug has been fixed. What is the official QTGMC author's stance on this? Can we revert to RemoveGrainSSE3 or should we still continue to use RemoveGrainSSE2.dll?

And I do not wish to step on any toes or insult anyone, but I have downloaded pretty much every free filter/plugin from MSU. Even though Mounir talks about a payware filter, if their freeware is any measure, I can safely say that their quality cannot match anything the high-performance plugins avisynth can throw at them. The demo pictures they show on their website are nothing more than demo pictures, not real-life applications. Believe me, I've tried Boolet, FieldsKit, Topaz Enhance et al, and QTGMC leaves them far behind. Your particular case is, as others have already mentioned quite difficult for any deinterlacer.
Q/TGMC and x264 were the two pieces of software that woke me up to the idea that freeware can be better than payware
aegisofrime is offline  
Old 25th May 2011, 19:59   #707  |  Link
Mounir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didée View Post
You believe the marketing fairytales?
Hmm yeah i believe the hype, why don't you ?
Mounir is offline  
Old 29th May 2011, 21:36   #708  |  Link
Overdrive80
Anime addict
 
Overdrive80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 619
Update doc plugin in spanish. Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?1h1r5tf2t9t8rq1
__________________
Intel i7-6700K + Noctua NH-D15 + Z170A XPower G. Titanium + Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 2x8GB + Nvidia GTX750 2GB DDR5 + SSD Vertex 4 256 GB + Antec EDG750 80 Plus Gold Mod + Corsair 780T Graphite
Overdrive80 is offline  
Old 30th May 2011, 10:48   #709  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mounir View Post
Hmm yeah i believe the hype, why don't you ?
Hehe because without hard facts it's hard and these samples are known once schumacher and flag people here on doom9 are confronted with situations most test sequences shown their don't reproduce
And if you want to test the base of their algorithm you can do that http://www.yuvsoft.com/download/dein...ing/index.html
And well it's Didée (nothing to add)
__________________
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; 30th May 2011 at 10:56.
CruNcher is offline  
Old 6th June 2011, 03:54   #710  |  Link
upyzl
zj262144
 
upyzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 105
First I'm new to QTGMC here...
A question maybe stupid for others but confused for me

Could QTGMC use FFT3Dgpu instead of FFT3Dfilter? How?
__________________
MPC-HC 1.7.8 / LAV Filters 0.64+ (tMod) / XySubFilter 3.1.0.705 / madVR 0.87.14

Direct264 Mod (src & win32 builds): code.google.com/p/direct264umod (maybe outdated)
upyzl is offline  
Old 6th June 2011, 20:08   #711  |  Link
-Vit-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by upyzl View Post
Could QTGMC use FFT3Dgpu instead of FFT3Dfilter? How?
I guess you could replace the single call to FFT3DFilter in the script.
I have never done so because FFT3Dgpu is unstable for me. I believe it is also unstable generally with SetMTMode, which many people use with QTGMC.

I don't think it would give a great speed up because denoising is only a small part of the processing (and not enabled by default anyway).
-Vit- is offline  
Old 6th June 2011, 21:47   #712  |  Link
smok3
brontosaurusrex
 
smok3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,375
thanks!

p.s. Getting around 1.7 fps in virtual machine with non-MT version (on quad core machine).
smok3 is offline  
Old 7th June 2011, 01:01   #713  |  Link
upyzl
zj262144
 
upyzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 105
@ -Vit-

Thanks for the reply!
__________________
MPC-HC 1.7.8 / LAV Filters 0.64+ (tMod) / XySubFilter 3.1.0.705 / madVR 0.87.14

Direct264 Mod (src & win32 builds): code.google.com/p/direct264umod (maybe outdated)
upyzl is offline  
Old 15th June 2011, 23:49   #714  |  Link
The Showstopper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10
Does QTGMC works on interlaced credits (30i) scrolling on top of a telecined background??
The Showstopper is offline  
Old 16th June 2011, 04:31   #715  |  Link
Heaud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 42
It needs to be done with a script such as the one in this link.
Heaud is offline  
Old 16th June 2011, 15:46   #716  |  Link
Lighto
The Black Reaper
 
Lighto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 320
Thanks guys for the awesome script.
I am having trouble getting MT to work without crashing, would it make sense for me to run parallel non-MT instead to fully make use of my CPU?

Thanks.
Lighto is offline  
Old 16th June 2011, 16:34   #717  |  Link
-Vit-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighto View Post
Would it make sense for me to run parallel non-MT instead to fully make use of my CPU?
It will certainly works and can be effective sometimes - depends on the source and settings. It's not as fast as using SetMTMode - having your CPU under full load does not necessarily mean it's working efficiently.

Have you tried the various ideas from the first post? Particularly different versions of Avisynth MT and my modded plugins? Also try running MT at less than full load, that can help whilst still being faster.

____

On a related point, I recommend updating to nnedi3 0.94, it gives a nice speed-up (thanks tritical!).

Last edited by -Vit-; 16th June 2011 at 16:38.
-Vit- is offline  
Old 16th June 2011, 21:58   #718  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,183
I tried new plugins, all versions of avisynth and on HD sources and my 24core machine it crashes until I limit it to <4 cores. Even this sometimes crashes- only not using mt gives stable results, but 2fps is way to slow

It's a bit hopeless
Quality is better than anything I've seen including big K$ solutions.


Andrew

Last edited by kolak; 16th June 2011 at 22:02.
kolak is offline  
Old 17th June 2011, 00:40   #719  |  Link
-Vit-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 448
Well, you can safely use a faster preset with HD material, e.g.
QTGMC( "Faster" )


Also, you should usually output to a lossless intermediate file when using QTGMC on HD. Then encode that lossless file to x264 or whatever. Otherwise Avisynth will run out of memory (it's still a 32-bit app, so limited to 2Gb).
-Vit- is offline  
Old 17th June 2011, 22:04   #720  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Vit- View Post
Well, you can safely use a faster preset with HD material, e.g.
QTGMC( "Faster" )


Also, you should usually output to a lossless intermediate file when using QTGMC on HD. Then encode that lossless file to x264 or whatever. Otherwise Avisynth will run out of memory (it's still a 32-bit app, so limited to 2Gb).
I use one of Canopus Lossless/HQX/HQ (or uncompressed).

I have to try again 64bit, but last time I had no luck. Couldn't make it working at all

Andrew
kolak is offline  
Closed Thread

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 19:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.