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 21st July 2015, 22:40   #32041  |  Link
Q-the-STORM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
The source posted by me is very small, but if I get close enough, I think the foreground is not unsharp at all and thus the upscaled image shouldn't be blurry either.
I didn't mean your picture specifically, I meant any picture in general...
e.g. if a filmmaker wanted it to be slightly unsharp...

of course in some cases of very downscaled images you will never get an accurate upscale, simply because too much information was lost... but videos at e.g. 480x270 are pretty rare... usually we are talking about at least DVD resolutions, which should have enough information...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikarad View Post
Thanks but I don't understand why this line is not visible at 120hz. 120hz is a multiple of 24.
same applies at 120Hz...

24 frames at 120Hz will have 96 repeated frames every second, so the counter would be almost 1000 after 10 seconds...

Last edited by Q-the-STORM; 21st July 2015 at 22:44.
Q-the-STORM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 23:16   #32042  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,961
the repeat line is only there for rendered frames that needs to be repeated for what ever reason. this is not about presentation.

as long as this is not needed you will not see this line.

the refresh rate has nothing to do with this.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 00:04   #32043  |  Link
6233638
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
Thank you for the in-depth sharpness comparisons everyone.
I had a look over everything posted over the last day or two, and did some testing of my own.

My concern is that most of the test images that people are using as a reference are already over-sharpened, containing pre-existing ringing artifacts and aliasing.
So in order to match the source image, you end up using overly sharp post-processing, which seems to be introducing a lot of artifacts around high-contrast edges.

I would focus more on good Blu-ray sourced images downscaled 50% and trying to match the original sharpness, than using photographs or content from what appears to be low-quality or re-compressed sources, if the goal is restoration rather than enhancement.
I do also wonder if people are checking the results on small PC monitors, or their tv/projection setups.
In what testing I have been able to do, SuperRes seems to be introducing aliaising and particularly ugly high-frequency ringing at all strengths.
Even with a strength of 1 and radius of 1.00 it's still adding aliasing - whether that is real-world images, or test patterns.
Of course if you're combining that with a scaler that already suffers from aliasing (basically anything other than Jinc or image doubling) perhaps the additional aliasing is not that noticeable?

I finally got around to trying out Super-XBR too, which seems to add a lot of low-frequency ringing with sharpness set above 25 - which you may not notice if you're looking at a poor quality source that already has ringing artifacts, rather than a good Blu-ray disc.
Combining Super-XBR with sharpening to achieve similar results to 16-neuron NNEDI3 ended up with higher render times and worse image quality than just using NNEDI3.

Here's one of the images that I was testing with which seemed to show aliasing quite well:I'm not really happy with how that looks using any of the sharpening options, or scaling other than NNEDI3.
But perhaps I haven't spent enough time with the new options, I really haven't been able to do much testing with anything that's been introduced in the last couple of months at all.
6233638 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 00:24   #32044  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemoW View Post
Maybe it's time to add some kind of shader AA filter like FXAA/SMAA?
I think FXAA/SMAA works by knowing the vector graphics details (a line goes from one point to another). madVR does not have that kind of information for video. Game rendering and video rendering are *TOTALLY* different. Game rendering is vector graphics. Video rendering is bitmap graphics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Upscaling naturally softens an image, and we're not always upscaling an image with the factor you have used for your example.
So, will SuperRes still "add" enough sharpness if the scaling factor is much higher? madVR offers to run a sharpening pass after each doubling, but you said that SuperRes has less work to do with each pass.
I've tried quadrupling an image, and it makes no big difference to image sharpness whether I run SuperRes after doubling and quadrupling, or only after quadrupling. Based on that I'd say that SuperRes should work ok, regardless of the upscaling factor. At least in theory. It might make sense to double check that. But please let's do that with a ground truth image to compare to, because otherwise it's all nothing but subjective again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Ok, here comes the example:
Original (yes, there are some weird ghosting artifacts in the source):

[...]

FS & LS are ring feasts. SuperRes adds some details from the source, which is remarkable, but it fails to really make the image look sharp. It's impossible in this case that the sharpness of SuperRes could be closer to the source than AS. So maybe SuperRes is nearer to the source apart from sharpness in this example, but I doubt many people would describe the result of it better than AS.
Where's the ground truth for this image? Do you *want* our discussion to not be objective? The problem with not having a ground truth is that we can discuss for hours how the upscaled image should look like without ever coming to an agreement. Maybe your very tiny original image was downscaled with a very soft algorithm? In that case the downscaling algorithm was at fault for the very soft result produced by SuperRes. But without having a ground truth, I can't even double check if the downscale was produced with a reasonably good downscaling algorithm or not. I can't check anything, because I've nothing to compare to.

I think you're missing the whole point of my "research": I've no problem if you want to sharpen your video. No problem at all. But artificially sharpening video is not something that should ever be enabled by default in madVR. On the other hand, faithfully upscaling sources, by producing images which are as near to the ground truth as possible, that is something that would make a great default setting in madVR.

Obviously faithful upscaling is useless if it's full of artifacts. So maybe there needs to be more work done on fixing the ringing and aliasing artifacts SuperRes might still produce. But do you understand my motivation here? I'm not trying to tell users what to do. I'm trying to find good default settings for madVR to produce the most accurate image quality. Some users might prefer it sharper, so they can add sharpening on top like e.g. AdaptiveSharpen. Fine with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Here's the original frame (with Jinc AR for chroma):
http://abload.de/image.php?img=adorigymo4j.png

I think it's not mean to say that super-xbr + SuperRes looks totally cruel regarding ringing in this example.
But please have a look at all the lines in these images. Take a step back from your monitor and compare the SuperRes image with the original frame, and with the AdaptiveSharpen image. Here's an extract using super-xbr for upscaling:



You should clearly see that all the lines in the original frame are noticeably thinner than in the AdaptiveSharpen (and unprocessed) image. And you should also see that SuperRes manages to thin most of the lines back to what they should be. YES, there are artifacts. But if you try to ignore them for a second, don't you see that SuperRes brings the upscaled image much nearer to the original image? In contrast to that, AdaptiveSharpen puts more weight on the fat bloated up lines, to make them even more different from the original source. So AdaptiveSharpen moves the image away from what the upscaled image should ideally look like. To you it might look pleasing. To my eyes it looks bad.

I think your whole approach is "wrong". You're trying to find algorithms which produce results which you personally find pleasing. The problem with that is that what is pleasing to you might be totally ugly to the next guy. Instead I'm trying to find algorithms which produce accurate results that are faithful to the original source. If there are artifacts, I have to fix them. But it's still the right approach. If the final results of my tweaks are too soft for your taste, you can always touch them up by adding some sharpen on top. At least you would then sharpen the thin lines instead of the bloated lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
OK thanks for the detailed explanation, so it's a smarter dithering algorithm
No, it's got nothing to do with dithering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
I take it that using infos from the previous frames would be impossible to do in realtime and would require rocket science in order to guess what to keep and what to ignore.
I've never tried that, I've no idea if that would work and how difficult it would be. It's a *totally* different kind of algorithm than the one developed by Shiandow. Please try not to be confused that there are 2 totally different approaches which share the same "SuperRes" name.

FWIW, some time ago there was a thread in the AviSynth section about the other SuperRes algorithm you're talking about. The AviSynth experts seemed to agree that this kind of stuff (looking at multiple consecutive frames) would only work with heavily aliased sources. But our usual DVD and Blu-Ray sources are typically soft, and not aliased. So for those the multi-frame-SuperRes would probably not work at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
How about dithering, can I leave monostatic ED2 engaged without tempering with the end results?
Dithering is totally separate, you can use whatever you want. The difference between different dithering methods is extremely small compared to differences between upscaling and sharpening algorithms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
I guess it would also make sense to use a noisy 1080p BD screenshot, because it would appear that SR likes to repair errors, some smart upscalers fail guessing and we are mostly using all this on low res noisy stuff to begin with.
Yes, might be an interesting test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-the-STORM View Post
Well that is *exactly* the reason madshi's comparisons were comparing against a "ground truth" image... with that we take away most of the subjectivity...
there is no "I like this image better because.." there is only "This image is closer to the ground truth"..
someone may want the image to be sharper but you can always sharpen... some want the image to be more colorful, you can always add saturation... that's stuff that can always be done to the users preference...
but the point here is a different one...
the point is not to make the image more appealing, the point is for madVR to upscale as accurate as possible to the ground truth...

there is no way to know if an upscale is accurate if we don't have a higher res image, that's why the ground truth image is so important....

if upscale1 is close to the ground truth, if upscale2 is close to the ground truth and upscale3 is close to the ground truth, then we can assume that images that don't have a ground truth image to compare to, are also accurately upscaled...

this is not about "fixing" an image to your viewing prefenrece... if it was shot slightly unsharp, we want madVR to upscale it to an unsharp image... you can always sharp the image afterwards if you want, but people that don't should be given the option not to...

and making the image more sharp because it *might* be more accurate without having a ground truth image to verify, is very subjective...
people will think the image is more accurate because they like it better...
Yep, exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6233638 View Post
Thank you for the in-depth sharpness comparisons everyone.
I had a look over everything posted over the last day or two, and did some testing of my own.

My concern is that most of the test images that people are using as a reference are already over-sharpened, containing pre-existing ringing artifacts and aliasing.
So in order to match the source image, you end up using overly sharp post-processing, which seems to be introducing a lot of artifacts around high-contrast edges.

I would focus more on good Blu-ray sourced images downscaled 50% and trying to match the original sharpness, than using photographs or content from what appears to be low-quality or re-compressed sources, if the goal is restoration rather than enhancement.
I do also wonder if people are checking the results on small PC monitors, or their tv/projection setups.
In what testing I have been able to do, SuperRes seems to be introducing aliaising and particularly ugly high-frequency ringing at all strengths.
Even with a strength of 1 and radius of 1.00 it's still adding aliasing - whether that is real-world images, or test patterns.
Of course if you're combining that with a scaler that already suffers from aliasing (basically anything other than Jinc or image doubling) perhaps the additional aliasing is not that noticeable?

I finally got around to trying out Super-XBR too, which seems to add a lot of low-frequency ringing with sharpness set above 25 - which you may not notice if you're looking at a poor quality source that already has ringing artifacts, rather than a good Blu-ray disc.
Combining Super-XBR with sharpening to achieve similar results to 16-neuron NNEDI3 ended up with higher render times and worse image quality than just using NNEDI3.

Here's one of the images that I was testing with which seemed to show aliasing quite well:I'm not really happy with how that looks using any of the sharpening options, or scaling other than NNEDI3.
But perhaps I haven't spent enough time with the new options, I really haven't been able to do much testing with anything that's been introduced in the last couple of months at all.
Thanks, the Mononoke image will be useful. Do you have some samples showing aliasing with filmed content, too? And some samples where that ugly high-frequency detail is especially evident? Unfortunately all the users who complain about aliasing either post no samples at all, or just one image. Would really be useful to have a wider set of samples to work with. PNG images should suffice. (And please always include the original 1080p image, as you've done with Mononoke). Thanks!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 00:55   #32045  |  Link
har3inger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 139
Just FYI, SMAA and FXAA are post-processing shaders that work on the frame buffer by finding edges in the image and smart blending them. Unlike MSAA, you don't need any info regarding the object geometry, and could probably use FXAA or SMAA as photoshop plugins if you wanted to. IMO, they're sort of specific for hard-edge staircase aliasing you get from rasterization and don't really have a place in film anti-aliasing. However, super-xbr was designed for emulators at first, and at least I didn't think it would work at all for film content until I tried it and was amazed by it. Maybe these post-processing filters could be the same.

Keep in mind that because SMAA and FXAA have no access to geometry data, they do jack all for temporal aliasing or crawling edges, which thankfully aren't really that common in filmed content.
har3inger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 01:34   #32046  |  Link
Anime Viewer
Troubleshooter
 
Anime Viewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemoW View Post
Maybe it's time to add some kind of shader AA filter like FXAA/SMAA?
It would be especially helpful for sources like this: https://yadi.sk/i/hp2iZS68hC554
Quote:
Originally Posted by har3inger View Post
Just FYI, SMAA and FXAA are post-processing shaders that work on the frame buffer by finding edges in the image and smart blending them. Unlike MSAA, you don't need any info regarding the object geometry, and could probably use FXAA or SMAA as photoshop plugins if you wanted to. IMO, they're sort of specific for hard-edge staircase aliasing you get from rasterization and don't really have a place in film anti-aliasing. However, super-xbr was designed for emulators at first, and at least I didn't think it would work at all for film content until I tried it and was amazed by it. Maybe these post-processing filters could be the same.

Keep in mind that because SMAA and FXAA have no access to geometry data, they do jack all for temporal aliasing or crawling edges, which thankfully aren't really that common in filmed content.
If you have an Nvidia GPU you can force FXAA and other similar antialasing on in Nvidia control panel in the program settings area. You apply it to mpc-hc (or whatever video player you are using with madVR). As the description in Nvidia Control Panel will tell you "FXAA is a fast shader-based post-processing technique that can be applied to any program, including those which do not support other forms of hardware-based antialiasing. FXAA can be used in conjunction with other antialiasing settings to improve overall image quality. Note that enabling this setting globally may affect all programs rendered on the GPU, including video players and the Windows desktop." Since it applies to whatever video player you assign to it in Nvidia by changing it from Use global setting (Off) to "On" madshi shouldn't need to do anything to madVR. You may not see any significant visual difference between having it off or on, and it could actually produce dithering or artifacts. As it says under usage scenarios:
"Turn FXAA off it you notice artifacts or dithering around the edges of objects, particularly around text". "Turn FXAA on to improve image quality with a lesser performance impact than other antialiasing settings"
__________________
System specs: Sager NP9150 SE with i7-3630QM 2.40GHz, 16 GB RAM, 64-bit Windows 10 Pro, NVidia GTX 680M/Intel 4000 HD optimus dual GPU system. Video viewed on LG notebook screen and LG 3D passive TV.
Anime Viewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 02:49   #32047  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Thanks, the Mononoke image will be useful.
Compared to MPDN the results from SuperRes are quite different. madVR's version is better with line thickness but also adds a boat tonne of aliasing in comparison.
It certainly looks like you're on the right sort of path though with SuperRes, whatever you changed there seems to bring it much closer to the original, just gotta deal with those unwanted artifacts.

Last edited by ryrynz; 22nd July 2015 at 03:14.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 02:56   #32048  |  Link
Akeno
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
do you get this problem only with madVR?

and why do people still use CUVID? DXVA copyback is just better.
Are we referring to the H/W acceleration in LAV Video? Wouldn't CUVID be the most efficient if the user has an NVIDIA card?
Akeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 04:15   #32049  |  Link
mrcorbo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akeno View Post
Are we referring to the H/W acceleration in LAV Video? Wouldn't CUVID be the most efficient if the user has an NVIDIA card?
Nope.
mrcorbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 04:30   #32050  |  Link
Akeno
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcorbo View Post
Well then. This brings up other questions I've never thought about: LAV video forces you to dither videos. How does that work with madVR is also dithering videos? Does the video go through two dithering processes?
Akeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 04:40   #32051  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akeno View Post
Well then. This brings up other questions I've never thought about: LAV video forces you to dither videos. How does that work with madVR is also dithering videos? Does the video go through two dithering processes?
LAV defers to madVR for dithering by default, also LAV will only dither when required say when converting from 10-bit to 8-bit.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 06:47   #32052  |  Link
Warner306
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,126
@madshi

Can you take a look at rendering stats with Kodi DSPlayer? Upscaled videos (720p -> 1080p) are reporting rendering stats of 1-2ms. This is with v0.88.20.

For anyone interested in giving Kodi DSPlayer a try, a build of Kodi v15 Final is now available.

DSPlayer Download Link: http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=223175

Detailed set-up guide in my signature.
Warner306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 07:39   #32053  |  Link
Telion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 78
Also reporting unrealistically low rendering stats in 88.20.
Telion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 07:53   #32054  |  Link
Akeno
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 53
I've made a short comparison along the lines of madshi's post comparing Super-XBR and NNEDI3 in regards to SuperRes.
Source chosen specifically for the details in the eyes. These get extremely soft when upscaling.

GroundTruth -|- 50% downscaled


Without Refinement
NNEDI3 -|- Super-XBR

I'm using s-xbr 100 for these comparisons. NNEDI looks a better than s-xbr. You can see that the lines are a bit thicker especially in her eyes and there's small ringing around her chin and on the flash cards she's holding. S-xbr is a bit sharper than NNEDI in this example but NNEDI is closer to the groundtruth here.

SuperRes: Strength 2 / Radius 0.66
NNEDI3 -|- Super-XBR

With SuperRes, the images look nearly identical. NNEDI benefits a tiny bit from SuperRes. The image is slightly sharpened at the cost of tiny aliasing all around. You can see it on the lines of the flashcards. Super-XBR benefits a lot more from SuperRes as the thickness around the lines is significantly reduced but the ringing is still present.

Conclusions
So here's SuperRes on cartoon and anime content. No horrible directional artifacts to be found unlike the trees in the castle examples. All in all, NNEDI3 and Super-XBR produce nearly identical results when combined with SuperRes. NNEDI3 is still superior though as Super-XBR does produce more artifacts (look at the lower edge where the glass meets the door frame next to her shoulder and on the edges of her uniform) and ringing. If the image could be sharpened just a teeny bit more, we'd be extremely close to the groundtruth. Maybe a change in finesharp's algorithm to decrease artifacts or a denoise filter with finesharp could do the trick.

I'm also going to take back what I said about adaptive sharpen as an image enhancer. It completely ruins the soft glow she has on her face and makes the image look processed.

Last edited by Akeno; 22nd July 2015 at 07:56.
Akeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 08:59   #32055  |  Link
har3inger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 139
Akeno: Have you tried using higher sharpness (125, 150) Super-XBR to try and match the sharpness you get from nnedi3?

These comparisons are very interesting. It seems like perhaps SuperRes itself is the primary determinant of final image quality. Might be worthwhile to do some tests of jincAR or even bicubic75AR to allow more headroom for more SR passes.
har3inger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 11:20   #32056  |  Link
pureocean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Dear @madshi,

Firstly, thank you very much for this renderer. It's very useful. Especially on NT6 and NT10. Because of EVR can't support properly seeking, jumping in videos (it's happening shutters when seeking). Why important to me? I can't reading subtitles fast. Therefore I press often back (left) key in media players.

I have black screen problem. My GPU is Radeon HD 3200. I use Potplayer (last version). Catalyst display driver is last version. A sample video. When in this video jump to 07, 08, 09, 10 and 18, 19, 20 seconds, it's displaying black screen for an instant. Which settings can fix this problem? I don't know using how "madVR debug.ax".

PS: I'm sorry, my bad English.
pureocean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 11:51   #32057  |  Link
Braum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 43
I did a short comparison of upscaling refinement options, mainly for myself, needed to know what was best for anime content.

Source : 1280x720
Monitor : 1680x1050

Chroma upscaling : Super-xbr 75
Image downscaling : Lanczos 4 AR LL
Image doubling : Super-xbr 75 (double luma/chroma)
Image upscaling : Jinc AR

Zoom 400%

Original

SuperRes Strengh 2 Radius 0.65 (the higher the strengh, the worst the result)

Adaptive Sharpen 0.3

Adaptive Sharpen 0.1

Finesharp 1.0

So SuperRes mostly damage the original content, adaptive sharpen 0.3 is way too much, so I'll go for Finesharp 1.0/1.5 or Adaptive Sharpen 0.1/0.2.

Finesharp seems to be better for movie content (bluray, high quality source) and adaptive sharpen for anime content (relatively new animes), at least that's my preferences.

edit : I decided to go with adaptive sharpen 0.2

Last edited by Braum; 22nd July 2015 at 15:37.
Braum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 12:23   #32058  |  Link
6ari8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
That sounds quite interesting. I don't really have an explanation for that, unfortunately. Looking at my code, I seem to be doing everything correctly. Also on my PC I can't reproduce these issues. As a test I've setup GPU queues to 16 and the present queue to 8, and playback is mooth with D3D11 in both windowed and FSE mode, regardless of whether the OSD is on or off.

It seems there are some odd problems out there atm, with v0.88.17+, but it seems to affect only few users, and every of them seems to have different problems, and I can't reproduce any of them. So it's really hard for me to do anything about it. Of course I could simply revert all changes I did, but then we would lose some important improvements that several media player devs have been wishing for and been quite happy to see introduced in v0.88.17 (like low latency OSD, smooth and low GPU power paused mode rendering etc).
I believe the stuttering issue started with v0.88.16b.

Maybe you can ask users who're having similar issues to try and see if they don't happen in debug mode. If the debug mode has the same code as release mode then it really is strange.

Maybe I can try and help you reproduce it.
*enable FSE mode and use D3D11
*Set both CPU queue size and GPU queue size to 10
*Set "how many video frames shall be presented in advance:" in exclusive mode settings to 2
*All trade quality for performance options are disabled.
*Set your monitor/TV to 23Hz
*Download this file: http://usersfiles.com/ltuz45pmu6wz and play it while you have the OSD up.


Also, regarding v0.88.20, the issue is not fixed unfortunately.
It also introduced this issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warner306 View Post
@madshi

Can you take a look at rendering stats with Kodi DSPlayer? Upscaled videos (720p -> 1080p) are reporting rendering stats of 1-2ms. This is with v0.88.20.

For anyone interested in giving Kodi DSPlayer a try, a build of Kodi v15 Final is now available.

DSPlayer Download Link: http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=223175

Detailed set-up guide in my signature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telion View Post
Also reporting unrealistically low rendering stats in 88.20.
6ari8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 12:33   #32059  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,226
With regards to what Nev said over on the LAV thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
With madVR, using Copy-Back may give you slightly better quality, as madVR has a few problems getting access to the unprocessed image otherwise.
Can you give us any firm info on this?
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 13:01   #32060  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Where's the ground truth for this image? Do you *want* our discussion to not be objective? The problem with not having a ground truth is that we can discuss for hours how the upscaled image should look like without ever coming to an agreement.
I don't have any for this example, then let's skip it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Maybe your very tiny original image was downscaled with a very soft algorithm?
As I said, the foreground looks totally clear to me in its native resolution.
Why is this not a valid point, according to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
But artificially sharpening video is not something that should ever be enabled by default in madVR.
And you are missing my point. I never claimed that I would want to achieve artifical sharpness.
Is your display still sub-1080p? I really doubt it makes sense to judge about sharpness if you can count every single pixel.
When upscaling to WQHD, the blur becomes very intrusive when watching from the near. This is not the case when watching 1080p on the same display without scaling, no matter how close I get. So I must be bothered by the blur that emerges with scaling.

Sorry, two years ago I was still on 1280x1024 and felt perfectly happy with it.
Funny thing is that now for me everything looks blurry on it, there is no such thing as "natural sharpness". Instead, it's extremely easy to see any kind of artifacts though.

Probably someone with a 4k display <30" will even judge more in my way since WQHD is still a joke compared to mobile devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
On the other hand, faithfully upscaling sources, by producing images which are as near to the ground truth as possible, that is something that would make a great default setting in madVR.
Of course this should be the goal, but then you'd also need to make NNEDI3 64 the default settings because everything else introduces tons of artifacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
But please have a look at all the lines in these images. Take a step back from your monitor and compare the SuperRes image with the original frame, and with the AdaptiveSharpen image. Here's an extract using super-xbr for upscaling:
I already stated that NNEDI3 produces softer lines than super-xbr (at least super-xbr 100, difference is extreme). I wouldn't recommend any sharpening at all when upscaling without NNEDI3 because nobody needs sharpen of obvious artifacts.
I don't think it makes sense to discuss about your examples without knowing the exact super-xbr and AS settings.
Is it super-xbr 75? Then you have a point. Else not, there is not a real difference in line thickness when comparing 720p -> WQHD NNEDI3 64 + 0.2 AS UR vs. super-xbr 100 no UR.
aufkrawall 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 11:07.


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