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 14th June 2015, 15:46   #31021  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
madVR v0.88.12 released

http://madshi.net/madVR.zip

Code:
* added super-xbr image doubling algorithm
* added super-xbr chroma upscaling algorithm
* added NEDI chroma upscaling algorithm
* added workaround for one more cause of queues not filling in D3D11 FSE mode
* removed FineSharp "mode", "repair" and "linear light" options
* removed SuperRes "error upscaling quality" option
* fixed: screenshots didn't always work when using DXVA scaling
* fixed: luma quadrupling could introduce greenish tint
* fixed: settings dialog required BT.709 3dlut slot to be filled
* fixed: auto 3dlut slot switching didn't always work correctly
* fixed: double clicking madTPG with D3D11 enabled -> black screen
* fixed: custom shader "clock" parameter was not set correctly
* fixed: ConfigureDisplayModeChanger(allowResolutionChanges = false) bug
Please note that I've already removed the FineSharp "linear light" option, although it's still in discussion. The reason for removing it was that at the point when I did the code change, everyone had voted in favor of linear light. Discussion about it only started after I had already remove the option from my code. Users who prefer the "linear light" option to be turned off for FineSharp can of course still use v0.88.11 to create comparison screenshots for discussion etc. I'm still willing to be convinced to disable linear light for FineSharp, with appropriate screenshots etc...

Here are some comparison screenshots showing how the latest upscaling/doubling algorithms (including NEDI and super-xbr) compare. All these are *without* any upscaling refinement:

clown:
bilinear -|- bicubic -|- lanczos4 -|- jinc -|- nedi -|- super-xbr -|- NNEDI3-16 -|- NNEDI3-256

lighthouse:
bilinear -|- bicubic -|- lanczos4 -|- jinc -|- nedi -|- super-xbr -|- NNEDI3-16 -|- NNEDI3-256

lighthouse top:
bilinear -|- bicubic -|- lanczos4 -|- jinc -|- nedi -|- super-xbr -|- NNEDI3-16 -|- NNEDI3-256

Please make sure you view these at 100% for proper comparison.

My first impression: super-xbr seems to better than NNEDI3 with 16 taps at producing aliasing free edges. It's also quite sharp and artifact free. However, NNEDI3 looks more "in focus", all the image features are a bit tighter. So I still prefer the overall "look" that NNEDI3 produces. However, super-xbr seems to be the best bang for the buck right now. It's reasonably fast (a bit slower than Jinc and Nedi, but much faster than NNEDI3-16).

Let me know what you think!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:04   #31022  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,829
the biggest issue i see with super xbr is holoing/ringing on all your screens. let's see what superres can do about that.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:05   #31023  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 497
@madshi
I have enhanced the squirrel so that hopefully you can see what I mean with heavy artefacts with LL. I just want to make sure we are speaking of the same things.

I did enhance both shots with GIMP (input levels set to 0, 2.00, 255) so I basically amplified the medium values for both shots to show you what I mean. Hopefully I can rest my case after this, because if you deny that LL looks a lot worse on the squirrel in the following shots, I will just give up. Because it seems you aren't interested in facts, anymore. You are making changes WAY too fast for anyone to catch up and that saddens me greatly. I am not sure why you suddenly rush things when there wasn't any screenshots from people that still use madVR, apart from maybe TheLion, which I appreciate. Especially since you invested so much time in madVR already that waiting a few more days for others to judge won't hurt anyone.

No LL, enhanced and cropped:


LL, enhanced and cropped:


The samples I provided show the exact same behaviour and the "blackness" that consumes the image more and more if you upscale makes these images a lot worse in general. It's almost like LL crushed black levels.

I am very interested in your opinion on this.

For the strength values, a good middle-way would probably be 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0. So for people that prefer to oversharpen a lot, 2.0 is good for them, 1.0 is good for a medium sharpener and for low-resolution content, 0.5 is already sharp enough without amplifying compression artefacts too much.

I have a hardware-calibrated Eizo that shows perfect levels from 0-255, this is the same monitor that I used when we did the dithering tests and I never changed any settings that could make my results different from others. I now even have it running in perfect 10bit mode (FSE), thanks to you. I even made sure to use the defaults, no change, as expected. If people really want a worse algorithm and don't judge what they see with screenshots (because the eyes cannot judge picture details) all the tests that the majority did are worthless. As harsh as it may sound.

You just cannot judge with your eyes alone, plain and simple. It's a combination of eyes, analysis based on some example images and some subjective inputs.

Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 16:30.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:20   #31024  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,829
@iSunrise

not sure why an amplifications is needed.

i see more issue on the left diag part with the white around the black lines which looks way better with linear light but still bad.

but the squirrel? on the right has a lot more "ringing" with linear light.

but i didn't like finesharp in general i guess that's why.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:23   #31025  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
@iSunrise

not sure why an amplifications is needed.

i see more issue on the left diag part with the white around the black lines which looks way better with linear light but still bad.

but the squirrel? on the right has a lot more "ringing" with linear light.

but i didn't like finesharp in general i guess that's why.
It is needed because apparently some people just ignore what I have shown them with basically only doing a couple screenshots. That's why such measures are needed to show the differences even more clearly.

I could do countless other examples and LL would exhibit the same problems. No LL is a lot more natural without artefacts, plain and simple. Still, people prefer LL and I don't get it.

And that's at a strength that is already very high (2.0), so that means that no LL could even be cranked up more without showing such nasty artefacts.

Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 16:27.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:31   #31026  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,829
i can't disagree on these screenshoots but without LL there are other issue too.

but the squirrel looks way better without LL! and the dark parts of the fur are better without LL too.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:40   #31027  |  Link
James Freeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
I think that the more contrast the image has (bigger distance between two close shades) the more obvious the ringing is. This is always true with any upscaler.
LL somehow enhances this even further.

As I see it, LL is better for natural images with smooth transition between shades (closer shades), and gamma light is better for cartoons or generated test patterns.
I may be wrong...

I would prefer to keep LL Off and just add sharpness to avoid ringing.
__________________
System: i7 3770K, GTX660, Win7 64bit, Panasonic ST60, Dell U2410.
James Freeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:40   #31028  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
i can't disagree on these screenshoots but without LL there are other issue too.

but the squirrel looks way better without LL! and the dark parts of the fur are better without LL too.
Yes, that's exactly what I see. It is just way more natural. LL adds something to the image that just makes it look totally "processed", while no LL really does a great job and just amplifies the basic picture details like a good sharpener should do it.

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.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:42   #31029  |  Link
flashmozzg
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
the biggest issue i see with super xbr is holoing/ringing on all your screens. let's see what superres can do about that.
I agree. It is especially noticeable in lighthouse top fence.
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...
flashmozzg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:07   #31030  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 497
@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.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:20   #31031  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 838
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.
JarrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:27   #31032  |  Link
mbordas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 65
88.12 fixed the problem with display resolution being set to 23.969 instead of 23.976 when D3D11/FSE/10bit was enabled. The Custom Resolution Utlility (CRU) is no longer necessary. Thanks!
mbordas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:37   #31033  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 838
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.
JarrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 17:58   #31034  |  Link
Hyllian
Registered User
 
Hyllian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
madVR v0.88.12 released

http://madshi.net/madVR.zip

Code:
* added super-xbr image doubling algorithm
* added super-xbr chroma upscaling algorithm
Wow! That was fast!

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.
Hyllian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:04   #31035  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
Wow! That was fast!

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.
even nnedi3 shows the ringing so it should be in the source and sxbr just increases the strength of it more than the rest.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:12   #31036  |  Link
Hyllian
Registered User
 
Hyllian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
even nnedi3 shows the ringing so it should be in the source and sxbr just increases the strength of it more than the rest.
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.
Hyllian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:23   #31037  |  Link
MS-DOS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 76
Looking at these screenshots, I can assume that XBR could be my new favorite if not for that ringing. Going to test it myself. Hyllian, madshi - great job!
MS-DOS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:47   #31038  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
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.
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.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 18:54   #31039  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyllian View Post
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.
jinc level would be awesome.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 19:22   #31040  |  Link
Hyllian
Registered User
 
Hyllian's Avatar
 
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.
Hyllian 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 00:35.


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