LSFmod [v1.9 - Update 2009/10/05]

[Jeremy Duncan]

Didée may I ask you a question about lsfmod. I read the original thread you made for limitedsharpenfaster: link (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=84196), then you describe how limitedsharpen is different:

"Traditional sharpeners like sharpen() or UnsharpMask() compare each pixel against the average of its neighborhood, and emphasize the difference between them. The results (something like "per-pixel contrast enhancement") are good as long as the strength is kept low enough. But artefacts will arise very soon.
XSharpen, being a non-linear sharpener, replaces each pixel with either its darkest or brightest neighbor, depending on which is nearer in range. By the nature of the method, XSharpen produces edges with maximal possible aliasing (jaggyness). So one has either to reduce the percentage, thereby weakening the overall effect, or to work with big supersampling, which makes it both extremely slow and less effective. "

"Now, LimitedSharpen() doesn't re-invent the wheel. It just tries to take the best of both worlds.

Shortly, LimitedSharpen() applies one out of three different sharpeners (two domain sharpeners or a windowed range sharpener) to the source, but will limit the oversharpening (either "hard" or "soft") IF it exceeds a defined "overshoot"."

Does LaTo's lsfmod still follow this idea of what you said was limitedsharpen or is the lsfmod something new and different?
I ask because I use limitedsharpenfaster.

[Didée]

Didée may I ask you a question about lsfmod. No. :D

Does LaTo's lsfmod still follow this idea of what you said
Yes. Some refinements, more options, additional doodads & bells 'n whistels, but still the same principle. If it wasn't, it would have gotten a different name.

[Nephilis]

how can avoid this ==> mt_lutxy(Clp,"x y < x 1 + x y > x 1 - x ? ?",U=1,V=1)
the banding & oil painting (or face wax) effect of sharpening? What's the logic that processes? Is it some kind of limiting ? :)

Actually how can i learn using masktools to make my little own scripts?

[Didée]

Short explanation: limited precision of 8-bit colorspaces.
Pixels can only have integer values. If the sharpener "should" turn a pixel to 5.51, it will be 6. If it "should" turn it to 6.49, it will be 6. Error margin is 0.999... . Especially in "flat gradients", this error margin can mean that the actual error is as big as 100% (!). Hence, the trick is "whatever change you calculated, reduce that change by 1". This eliminates most of the ugly sideffects in sensitive areas, and has only very little reduced-sharpening effect on prominent detail.

[Nephilis]

Thank you Didée. A perfect explanation for a newbie..

[rkalwaitis]

Lato

I have a very soft source in which the edges are weak at best throughout. I have attached two jpgs to show the issue. The jpgs have not been processed in any way. I was hoping that perhaps LSFMod or MctemporalDenoise could help me remedy this. I tried MCTemporalDenoise to clean it up and it does a great job of getting rid of the noise. But I am needing a bit of assistance in what I should be tweaking to get my edges sharper. Is it the strength setting for sharp in MCTemporalDenoise. My people look like claymation. Please point me in the correct directionl. I know its hard to enhance or fix something that is not there, any recommendations are welcomed.

The color leaves a lot to be desired as well, but that can be fixed later.:thanks:
Here are two jpgs showing my problem.

[Didée]

General blabla until the images appear ...

For excessively soft sources, LSF (or any of its variations, spin-offs, or reinvent-the-wheel-itations) is simply the wrong tool. For very soft input signal, the "limiting" part is counterproductive. Very soft sources also need enhancement of signal peaks (making the signal amplitude larger), which is exactly what the limiting part of LSF prohibits.

SeeSaw actually tries something in the direction of signal enhancement (AFAIK the principle is not integrated in LSFmod, LaTo only transplanted the nonlinear sharpen from SeeSaw to LSFmod, but not the peak enhancement), but it may be too weak anyway ... it uses a basic 3x3 Median for enhancement, which often is too small a window. A 5x5 Median would catch much more signal, but is also harder to control.

[Reuf Toc]

You can try SuperSlowSharpen() (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=132330) from mp4guy but I've never tried it so I don't know if the result is stable, and given the name of this function I suppose it's very slow...
Sorry for the off topic

[rkalwaitis]

IIP will that help out if tweaked properly?

[LaTo]

IIP will that help out if tweaked properly?

Have you tried this?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1252395#post1252395

Adjust strength to your taste, and play with "preblur" to minimize artefacts...

[rkalwaitis]

Thanks Lato

[10L23r]

General blabla until the images appear ...

For excessively soft sources, LSF (or any of its variations, spin-offs, or reinvent-the-wheel-itations) is simply the wrong tool. For very soft input signal, the "limiting" part is counterproductive. Very soft sources also need enhancement of signal peaks (making the signal amplitude larger), which is exactly what the limiting part of LSF prohibits.

SeeSaw actually tries something in the direction of signal enhancement (AFAIK the principle is not integrated in LSFmod, LaTo only transplanted the nonlinear sharpen from SeeSaw to LSFmod, but not the peak enhancement), but it may be too weak anyway ... it uses a basic 3x3 Median for enhancement, which often is too small a window. A 5x5 Median would catch much more signal, but is also harder to control.

Probably a stupid question but if you upsize an image... what filter should be used (to sharpen the upscaled image)?

[hydra3333]

I have been using LimitedSharpenFaster for years with settings (smode=4,strength=100).

I note that LSFmod is referred to regularly nowadays. I wonder if I should I move to it ... what has caused others to move to it ? Better result for equivalent cpu/elapsed-time bang or something ?

For my "usual" LimitedSharpenFaster usage, what would be roughly equivalent LSFmod settings to provide a similar or improved result (denoised PAL DV source) ?

Most importantly is it compatible with tsp's MT version of avisynth with SetMTode(mode=2) ?

[LaTo]

I have been using LimitedSharpenFaster for years with settings (smode=4,strength=100).

I note that LSFmod is referred to regularly nowadays. I wonder if I should I move to it ... what has caused others to move to it ? Better result for equivalent cpu/elapsed-time bang or something ?
Modifications are in the changelog (first post).

For my "usual" LimitedSharpenFaster usage, what would be roughly equivalent LSFmod settings to provide a similar or improved result (denoised PAL DV source) ?
LSFmod(defaults="old") will output exactly the same image as LimitedSharpenFaster()

So look at the change between defaults="old" and "slow"/"fast".

Most importantly is it compatible with tsp's MT version of avisynth with SetMTode(mode=2) ?
It should, no problem reported... if not, try with soothe=false in LSFmod()

[Tuik]

I am experiencing problems loading the plugin "VariableBlur".

I have that plugin on my AviSynth plugin's folder but when i load the script to VDM I always get the error "Unable to load Variableblur".

How can i fix that?

Thanks for the help!

[LaTo]

I am experiencing problems loading the plugin "VariableBlur".

I have that plugin on my AviSynth plugin's folder but when i load the script to VDM I always get the error "Unable to load Variableblur".

How can i fix that?

Thanks for the help!

I don't know how to fix that.

But if you don't use Smode=1 or Smode=2, you don't need VariableBlur.

[kool]

Is it good idea to sharpen the 1080p and 720p when the source is blu-ray? or it is just personal taste. if "yes" what is the recommended settings.

[osgZach]

I'm guessing this likely has something to do with WarpSharp/aWarpSharp, but I really like calling LSFmod w/defaults as it gives a pretty good overall sharpening effect on the picture, without getting too nasty.

However I have always had an issue with it doing something to the edges of the picture. I believe its just the top and right sides that it happens to, as far as I can tell. But right on the edge it does some "funny stuff" where some kind of artifact (I can't describe it) appears the entire length of both edges, and it stands out a lot when viewing, resulting in the need to crop 2 - 4 pixels depending.

Is this an inherent side effect that can't be avoided, or is there a way to get results very close to the defaults, without having this artifact show up?

If nothing can really be done.. can anyone recommend a safer (same performance or better) filter, and some settings to get similar results from the default LSFMod settings ?

I'm not looking for huge sharpening gains or anything like that. Just a very minor, overall clarity / "crispness" boost to the picture as a whole..

[GDAce]

why there is difference in parameters on avisynth page and here?

is it for updated or older version...?

[spider1]

Running this lsfmod filters and the process takes twice as long as other filters when using DVDRB. Any suggestion or changing lsfmod setting in order to run lsfmod faster.
This is what I use:
c:i:ColorMatrix(mode="Rec.601->Rec.709",interlaced=true,threads=4)
c:ColorMatrix(mode="Rec.601->Rec.709",threads=4)
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\FFT3DFilter.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\mt_masktools.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\RemoveGrain.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\Repair.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\RSharpen.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\VariableBlur.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\WarpSharp.dll")
Import("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\LSFMod.avs")
fft3dfilter(sigma=1.5, bt=5, bw=32, bh=32, ow=16, oh=16, sharpen=0.4)

[Gavino]

Running this lsfmod filters and the process takes twice as long as other filters when using DVDRB. ...
This is what I use:
...
Import("C:\Program Files (x86)\AviSynth 2.5\lsfmod\LSFMod.avs")
fft3dfilter(sigma=1.5, bt=5, bw=32, bh=32, ow=16, oh=16, sharpen=0.4)
If that really is your script, you are not even calling LSFMod (the Import just makes the function available), so the slowness comes from fft3dfilter.

[spider1]

If that really is your script, you are not even calling LSFMod (the Import just makes the function available), so the slowness comes from fft3dfilter.

I don't know much about this and seldom use it, your suggestions or ideas to help out is much appreaciated..

[foxyshadis]

If you have a good video card, get fft3dgpu and just replace the call to fft3dfilter with fft3dgpu. You should get an automatic speedup without any effort, if your gpu is good, plus it takes load off your cpu that can be used elsewhere. You will probably want to get Multithreaded (MT) Avisynth so that your script isn't sitting, waiting on the gpu. Use ow=8 and oh=8 to get a bit more speed.

Then you can actually use it: Put LSFmod(smode=5) at the bottom of your script. You can tweak it later, but you have to actually use it first! It'll take even longer though.

Then you just have to accept that these filters are slow. A lot of people have to upgrade their systems to use serious filtering. Plus, are you sure you really want to use a lot of sharpening on a DVD? It could introduce a lot more noise and blocking in the output, make sure you check the output (on a real TV if that's what you'll be playing it on).

[spider1]

If you have a good video card, get fft3dgpu and just replace the call to fft3dfilter with fft3dgpu. You should get an automatic speedup without any effort, if your gpu is good, plus it takes load off your cpu that can be used elsewhere. You will probably want to get Multithreaded (MT) Avisynth so that your script isn't sitting, waiting on the gpu. Use ow=8 and oh=8 to get a bit more speed.

Then you can actually use it: Put LSFmod(smode=5) at the bottom of your script. You can tweak it later, but you have to actually use it first! It'll take even longer though.

Then you just have to accept that these filters are slow. A lot of people have to upgrade their systems to use serious filtering. Plus, are you sure you really want to use a lot of sharpening on a DVD? It could introduce a lot more noise and blocking in the output, make sure you check the output (on a real TV if that's what you'll be playing it on).

Thanks for the advice foxyshadis. I'll try to replace fft3dfilter with fft3dgpu and you're probably right when I preview the output source, I see quite a few sharp scence and the picture kind of distored too. I've tried to set MT like this "SetMTMode(2,8)"at the begining of the script and this function MT("""LSFmod(SdmpHi=0,ss_x=1.0,ss_y=1.0)""") at the bottom, but seems like avisynth can't not load..:confused:. In term of upgrading system, currently I'm running quad 9550 with Nvidia Gforce 9800 GX2.

[foxyshadis]

Thanks for the advice foxyshadis. I'll try to replace fft3dfilter with fft3dgpu and you're probably right when I preview the output source, I see quite a few sharp scence and the picture kind of distored too. I've tried to set MT like this "SetMTMode(2,8)"at the begining of the script and this function MT("""LSFmod(SdmpHi=0,ss_x=1.0,ss_y=1.0)""") at the bottom, but seems like avisynth can't not load..:confused:. In term of upgrading system, currently I'm running quad 9550 with Nvidia Gforce 9800 GX2.

You have to actually install Avisynth with MT (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=148117) first. A 9800 GX2 should have enough power and memory to not distort it, odd.

[spider1]

You have to actually install Avisynth with MT (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=148117) first. A 9800 GX2 should have enough power and memory to not distort it, odd.

@ foxyshadis: I have to install avisynth 2.5.8 in order to get MT mode to work... I don't think Avisynth 2.5.7 does not work..

[Gavino]

I have to install avisynth 2.5.8 in order to get MT mode to work... I don't think Avisynth 2.5.7 does not work..
The 'official' MT release is derived from Avisynth 2.5.7. Download from here (http://www.avisynth.org/tsp/MT_07.zip).
The archive includes a modified 2.5.7 avisynth.dll which must be placed in your windows\system32 directory.
For more details, see
http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/MT
http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/MT_support_page

[Beak]

@Didee

If lsfmod uses a 3X3 median like See Saw, does that mean it is of limited use on Bluray sources as well?

[Didée]

Sure. LSFmod largely is LSF with SeeSaw implanted. Parameters plenty, invention little.

[Beak]

OK. Time to do some direct comparisons. I hate to be burning up CPU cycles for no good reason.

[Didée]

Well, it's not that either of these scripts would result in "no change" on HD sources. The edge sharpening will always work, and the limited-noisereduction of SeeSaw will also work. It's just the additional enhancement of SeeSaw (or corresponding LSFmod mode) that might deliver less additional enhancement.

The principle of LSF is that a sharpened pixel should not exceed the min/max of the neighborhood, in order to avoid creation of halos. This makes sense on "broad" edges. However on "small" detail, the overshoot is a wished effect - at least one half of it. Say there is a very thin line, supposed to be white, but in fact it's some medium grey. LSF will not allow the grey line to become more white-ish, because of the limiting. A not-limited sharpener will make the line more white-ish, but may cause a dark halo around the line. That's where SeeSaw's combination of kernel-sharpening and median-sharpening kicks in: it allows enhancement of the line, but won't create a halo around it. (Given that the source doesn't have halos already from the start.)
On HD sources, the problem often is that the 3x3 median doesn't "catch" small detail, because "small detail" on HD often doesn't correspond to 1-pixel-features, but rather to 2-pixel-features. (Very simplified.)
In case that the 3x3 median does not catch, then the "SeeSaw sharpening" will simply collapse to "LSF sharpening". It's basically the same operation, just that the additional headroom happens to be zero.

[Beak]

Can someone tell me which makes more sense?

Is it better to use
FFT3dGPU(sigma=1.5, bt=3, bw=32, bh=32, ow=16, oh=16)
MT("""LSFmod(smode=5)""", threads=4, overlap=8)

Or to use FFT3dGpu in the preblur function?

Thanks for any help.

[LaTo]

Can someone tell me which makes more sense?

Is it better to use
FFT3dGPU(sigma=1.5, bt=3, bw=32, bh=32, ow=16, oh=16)
MT("""LSFmod(smode=5)""", threads=4, overlap=8)

Or to use FFT3dGpu in the preblur function?

Thanks for any help.

If you want to denoise before sharpening, use it like this.
But if you doesn't want to denoise, use it in preblur function (it will prevent noise sharpening & artefacts)

[mastrboy]

On HD sources, the problem often is that the 3x3 median doesn't "catch" small detail, because "small detail" on HD often doesn't correspond to 1-pixel-features, but rather to 2-pixel-features. (Very simplified.)

Then is there any parameters that can be tweaked to make LSFmod more HD friendly? or is that up to the dependencies: ?

### -> Masktools (v2a36)
### -> Removegrain (v1.0pre) (isn't there a hd version of this?)
### -> Warpsharp (2003.11.03) [for Smode=1]
### -> Variableblur (v0.30) [for Smode=2]

[Nephilis]

Then is there any parameters that can be tweaked to make LSFmod more HD friendly? or is that up to the dependencies: ?


AFAIK there is a boolean "wide" parameter in LSF for this. But in LSFMod this parameter is removed by the author.

[Boulotaur2024]

Sorry for bumping this old thread but talking about the "wide" parameter I took the liberty of reincorporating it back into LSFMod (why remove it anyway ?) copying it from Didée's LimitedSharpenFaster.avs, with very few modifications.
I wanted to make sure everything was ok. Here are the lines that were added/copied :

dark_limit1 = tmp.mt_inpand(U=1,V=1)
bright_limit1 = tmp.mt_expand(U=1,V=1)
dark_limit = (wide==false) ? dark_limit1 : dark_limit1 .removegrain(17,-1).mt_inpand(U=1,V=1)
bright_limit = (wide==false) ? bright_limit1 : bright_limit1.removegrain(17,-1).mt_expand(U=1,V=1)

And here is the full modified script :
http://pastebin.com/fy0RvQGB

Can anyone (Didée ?) confirm these modifications will allow LSFMod to perform 5X5 median (my eyes might be misleading) ?
I really need a sharpening tool that is effective on 1080p hence my effort to plunge into avisynth scripting although I'm not much of a coder.

[Gser]

Sorry for bumping this old thread but talking about the "wide" parameter I took the liberty of reincorporating it back into LSFMod (why remove it anyway ?) copying it from Didée's LimitedSharpenFaster.avs, with very few modifications.
I wanted to make sure everything was ok. Here are the lines that were added/copied :

dark_limit1 = tmp.mt_inpand(U=1,V=1)
bright_limit1 = tmp.mt_expand(U=1,V=1)
dark_limit = (wide==false) ? dark_limit1 : dark_limit1 .removegrain(17,-1).mt_inpand(U=1,V=1)
bright_limit = (wide==false) ? bright_limit1 : bright_limit1.removegrain(17,-1).mt_expand(U=1,V=1)

And here is the full modified script :
http://pastebin.com/fy0RvQGB

Can anyone (Didée ?) confirm these modifications will allow LSFMod to perform 5X5 median (my eyes might be misleading) ?
I really need a sharpening tool that is effective on 1080p hence my effort to plunge into avisynth scripting although I'm not much of a coder.

When making changes to the script, update the version number and add a comment about what changes you have made and why you have made them if it is unclear.

[Boulotaur2024]

I will, upon confirmation that these changes actually do something useful... But I guess Didée's not around these days...
(Yes this is a subtle bump)

[gioppatta]

...for have a really strong sharpen?

[Pat357]

I ported LSFmod v1.9 to VapourSynth:
http://www.mediafire.com/?89rrd81111qgnqv


Thanks a lot for this nice contribution !

I've tried to run the script, but I got this :


>>> clip = LSFmod(clip, strength=123, show=True, defaults='slow', core=core)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\LSFmod.py", line 739, in LSFmod
show, screenW, screenH)
File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\LSFmod.py", line 722, in LSFM_Show
debug = core.std.StackHorizontal(e, core.std.StackVertical(core.avs.Subtitle(i, "Input",text_color=16777215,size=20.0,x=40,y=20), core.avs.Subtitle(o, "Output",text_color=16777215,size=20.0,x=40,y=20)))
File "vapoursynthpp.pyx", line 1003, in vapoursynth.Function.__call__ (src\cython\vapoursynthpp.c:
15286)
vapoursynth.Error: 'StackVertical: Too many unnamed arguments specified'
>>>


Any idea ?

[Myrsloik]

Thanks a lot for this nice contribution !

I've tried to run the script, but I got this :


>>> clip = LSFmod(clip, strength=123, show=True, defaults='slow', core=core)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\LSFmod.py", line 739, in LSFmod
show, screenW, screenH)
File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\LSFmod.py", line 722, in LSFM_Show
debug = core.std.StackHorizontal(e, core.std.StackVertical(core.avs.Subtitle(i, "Input",text_color=16777215,size=20.0,x=40,y=20), core.avs.Subtitle(o, "Output",text_color=16777215,size=20.0,x=40,y=20)))
File "vapoursynthpp.pyx", line 1003, in vapoursynth.Function.__call__ (src\cython\vapoursynthpp.c:
15286)
vapoursynth.Error: 'StackVertical: Too many unnamed arguments specified'
>>>


Any idea ?

The argument is a list of clips,not separate arguments as in avisynth for the stack functions.

Stackvertical([e, thatlongthing]) is what you wanted to write.

Also, nice job on porting it to vs. Here are a few things I noticed, all arguments default to none, even the ones that always have the same default value. I think you should also raise a ValueError exception instead when the input arguments are out of range instead of having asserts everywhere.

[Myrsloik]

Oops! I was too sleepy that I uploaded an old file. :eek:
Link updated.


I also was thinking should I set the default values for the ones always have the same value directly in function def. For the out of range check, I don't quite understand what you mean. Is something like assert Smode >= 1 and Smode <= 5, "LSFmod: 'Smode' have not a correct value! [1,2,3,4,5]" not good or sufficient? :thanks:

I suppose the assert method works too. What I do think could be a problem is your strict type checking of every input argument. If vs accepts ints for bool-ish arguments then why don't you when you simply pass it along?


There's another reason to use exceptions instead of assert. If the python script is executed in an optimized way then all asserts will be ignored and you won't get the expected behavior.

[Pat357]

After upping the number of threads to 4 or 6 (vs.core(threads=6)) I get crashes sometimes with the LSFMod .py.
Based on the Win 7 reporting, it seems that masktools is always involved.
With threads=1 or 2, no crashes anymore but then LSFMod becomes slow....
Is there anything that can be done in the vapousynth multi-threading to avoid such crashes ?
I don't get such crashes in Avisynth 2.6 MT, even if I use SetMTmode=6 or or 8....

1. Crash in Python.exe module :

Faulting application name: python.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x5066b7a2
Faulting module name: mt_masktools-25.dll, version: 2.0.48.0, time stamp: 0x4d1e0f42
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x0006d3d9
Faulting process id: 0x1374
Faulting application start time: 0x01cdad8d7ada88fd
Faulting application path: c:\Python33\python.exe
Faulting module path: k:\programs\AviSynth 2.5\special filters\masktools-v2.0a48\mt_masktools-25.dll

2. Crash in pfmhost.exe

Faulting application name: pfmhost.exe, version: 1.0.0.166, time stamp: 0x50326d57
Faulting module name: mt_masktools-25.dll, version: 2.0.48.0, time stamp: 0x4d1e0f42
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x0006d397
Faulting process id: 0x91c
Faulting application start time: 0x01cdad81b15df984
Faulting application path: C:\Windows\syswow64\pfmhost.exe
Faulting module path: k:\programs\AviSynth 2.5\special filters\masktools-v2.0a48\mt_masktools-25.dll

System : i7-970 Hexacore, 24 GB RAM, W7 SP1 (auto updated)
Avisynth 2.60 MT SEt, Vapoursynth r13

[x265]

What value should i set for smethod on DVD encodes?

[AGKnotUser]

This is probably a stupid question bit I'll ask anyway. Can I use variableblur ver. 0.70 instead of ver. 0.40? Thanks.

[LaTo]

This is probably a stupid question bit I'll ask anyway. Can I use variableblur ver. 0.70 instead of ver. 0.40? Thanks.
Variable Blur is only used for Smode=2, and to me Smode=1&2 are useless in most clips.

However v0.70 should work if no change has been made in the interface, just try and tell us if it works or not :)

[AGKnotUser]

Thank you for the reply. I'm using the "slow" preset with "preblur" (hqdn3d as the denoiser). I'll look at the script to see if variableblur is called in that situation.

Edit: just looked at the script and smode 2 is not called for with the "slow" preset.

[CarlPig]

What does this mean:

Cache: Filter returned invaild response to CACHE_GETCHILD_CACHE_MODE. 487505472
(LSFmod.v1.9.avsi, line 484)

[aldix]

You need masktools patch for recent MT avisynth build, if memory serves. Search for it on Google/forums.

[OtonVM]

You need masktools patch for recent MT avisynth build, if memory serves. Search for it on Google/forums.

This + don't forget a SetMTMode line. I had this problem right now :)