madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[TheShadowRunner]

v0.88.11 fixed the crash when returning to windowed mode from fullscreen (on XP), thank you madshi.

[Anima123]

For LR sources NNEDI3 for doubling and NEDI for the second round (with or without SuperRes) produces good quality.

[XRyche]

For LR sources NNEDI3 for doubling and NEDI for the second round (with or without SuperRes) produces good quality.

I actually use NNEDI3 32 neurons for doubling and NNEDI3 32
neurons for quadrupling for 240-360p already. I use NNEDI3 32 for doubling and NEDI for quadrupling for 480p. I tried SuperRes in conjunction with these settings.

[MistahBonzai]

As XRyche noted SuperRes introduces some strange distortions to the image edges (in my case the text overlay) as I cranked up the passes. It appeared to add a somewhat opaque overlay while adding extra edges outside the original text edges (not ringing - just sorta smudged out with faint new edges).

I discovered that SuperRes worked quite well for Chroma upscaling even with bicubic. I had been using LumaSharpen (1.4.1 (sharp) and 1.5.0 shaders with MPC-HC as well as FineSharp within AviSynth but never looked that closely at the results other than sharpening. I also found that LumaSharpen does indeed introduce halos as sharpness is increased. I now try FineSharp first before deciding if I want more detail enhancement.

[Anima123]

I actually use NNEDI3 32 neurons for doubling and NNEDI3 32
neurons for quadrupling for 240-360p already. I use NNEDI3 32 for doubling and NEDI for quadrupling for 480p. I tried SuperRes in conjunction with these settings.

SuperRes does not work as well with NNEDI3 as with NEDI, that may be one cause for your observation.

[JarrettH]

If using superres, does the upscaling algorithm matter as much?

I'm guessing "yes" since jinc will be more faithful to the original image than bicubic or bilinear, then superres will have a better upscaled image to work with.

Edit: Just saw madshi is looking for answers to this question :P

[JarrettH]

cyberscott and huhn seem to be landing on some good settings

0.40 to 0.45 for strength

0.25 sharpness

anti-aliasing (reducing to 0.20 to 0.25 to compensate a bit)

anti-ringing 0.8 to 0.9 (1.0 overcompensates)

in my case it is mainly 720p upscaled to 1080p

I also prefer to "refine image once" since I won't be doing multiple 2x upscales

[XRyche]

SuperRes does not work as well with NNEDI3 as with NEDI, that may be one cause for your observation.

I'll try that and see if it makes a difference. Thanks for the suggestion Anima123.



I just tried it with my test video and it does lessen the effect to some extent but the weird artifacts are still present. For super lo-res videos NNEDI3 32 neurons with no extra sharpening seems to look the best. Maybe if a general denoise/deblock shader or equivalent were run before SuperRes that might elevate the weird artifacts. As it stands now, SuperRes doesn't work for me with super lo-res material. It works fine with standard definition material as long as the material isn't too flawed.

[baii]

I don't know. Some more details would be helpful. Which video and target resolutions does it work with and which not? For each such combination please post the "movie resolution" and "target rectangle" information from the debug OSD (Ctrl+J). Just the text, no screenshots, please.



Seem like only works when scale factor >2 when rule is "if (scalingFactor.x > 1 )"

480p to windowed 15,0,2404,1264 or full screen 1,0,2561,1440- works
720p to windowed "" - not works
720p to full screen 1,0,2561,1440 - works
1080p or 800p scale to any size(meaning less than 1440p) - not works

confirmed by toggling options on the fly and pull up setting menu in windowed mode.

edit: hmm.. rule change to "if (scalingFactor.x > 0.9 )" and everything seem to work correct~
edit2: hmm nvm, "if (scalingFactor.x > 0.9 )" isnt it~

[Anime Viewer]

feedback

-------

Now that we've summed up debanding, I'd love to hear your feedback about "image enhancements" and "upscaling refinement". That's a rather broad topic, covering FineSharp, LumaSharpen und SuperRes, both before and after scaling. Tons of options, so a lot to test, a lot to play with. Let me know what you think, what you like and what you don't like.

-------

Let me describe again the concept I had in mind for these algorithms: In my experience there are 2 different causes to get soft/blurry video playback:

A) Either the source is already blurry.

If this is the case, a good idea might be to sharpen the source before upscaling it any further. The reason for this is that sharpening algorithms work by analyzing the direct neighborhood of each pixel in the image. Upscaling causes the image to get bigger, which means the neighbor pixels in the original image are much further apart from each other in the upscaled image. But the sharpening algorithm only looks at the near neighborhood. Which means that if we sharpen after upscaling, although the sharpening still somewhat works, it loses much of its effectiveness. If the source is already soft to begin with, sharpening after upscaling won't do very much, so for soft sources my idea was to sharpen them before upscaling.

This is what the "madVR\processing\image enhancement" settings page is for. You can think of "softness" as being just another artifact of some sources, and we fix it by sharpening the source before we scale it. This only applies to soft sources, though, so my suggestion would be to not enable these settings by default, but only by demand, if you have a really soft source.

I like the image enhancing before up-scaling option. It is less taxing and lower render times than applying the same effect (both Finesharp and LumaSharpen) as upscaling refinement options. With my Optimus system I can do SuperRes if I use the Nivida gpu, but not if I'm using the Intel gpu. Finesharp (mode 2) prescaling with image enhancement works for both gpu, and thus is more universal. If I use the Finesharp in image enhancement along with the SuperRes in the upscaling refinement section it seems that it makes the image too sharp for my tastes (adding artifacts/aliasing), but are more acceptable if using them together in one section or the other not mixed between the two sections.
I see similar image quality from Finesharp in image enhancement as to what I get with SuperRes in the upscaling refinement. The Finesharp in image enhancement bumps up the present number slightly and there is no increase in render times while anything in the upscaling refinement leads to increased render times.
Since the image enhancement selections is less taxing and works more universally (regardless of gpu) I'd vote for it over upscaling refinement options.



My hope here is that we can find a way to setup the "upscaling refinement" in such a way that every source maintains its natural sharpness after upscaling, regardless of which upscaling factor is used. I would like to find upscaling refinement settings which we can setup once and then forget, settings which work for any source and any upscaling factor.

At least that's the idea. I think the option "refine the image after every ~2x upscaling step" should be the right one to use to realize the above approach. But for testing purposes I want to let you choose to only apply upscaling refinement once after all upscaling is done, so you can compare the effect this option has.

Since the Finesharp (mode 2) used as image enhancement doesn't tax the system it seems like the most forget it and set it choice that will work regardless of video resolution and gpu.
The 2x setting with SuperRes seems to lead to high render settings (18-19ms in 480 video) compared to the refine only once option (13-14ms in 480 video), and I don't know that I saw a visual difference between the two as a result I'd stick with the faster rendering option.




Some specific questions I'd like to get an answer for:

1) In my tests medium "error upscaling quality" was quite a bit faster than high, while producing almost the same quality. Do you agree? Can I drop the "high" setting and simply always use "medium"?

I agree I don't see a significant difference that would warrant the high over medium setting, and would chose the medium setting.


2) It seems that running FineSharp and LumaSharpen *before* SuperRes has a much smaller effect than running them afterwards. So my question would be: Which in your opinion produces the better results: Running FineSharp / LumaSharpen before or after SuperRes?

Using FineSharp and LumaSharpen in image enhancement with SuperRes doesn't seem to give as good image quality as using the three together in upscaling refinement. If the three (or at least FineSharp and SuperRes) are going to be used together then it seems like they should be used both in upscaling enhancement instead of mixing the two by using FineSharp in image enhancement along with SuperRes in upscaling refinement. If there were a way to run SuperRes in image enhancement (pre-upscale) that like the other image enhancement options it could be less taxing, and work better with the other image enhancement options however given the nature of SuperRes I don't think such an option is plausible.


3) Which combination of settings do you like most? SuperRes alone? Or in combination with FineSharp and/or LumaSharpen? Or maybe just FineSharp?

I used to think just FineSharp, or just SuperRes alone was a good option that provided sharping, but not to the point of artifacts or over sharping. However experimenting today LumaSharpen has started to grow on me. Going with any of them alone provides a blurrier picture, but less artifacts. Combining two or more gives a sharper image, but more traces of artifacts. It seems like there is no right answer between the two, and its more up to the viewers preference as to which he/she would rather have: sharper images with the chance of noticeable artifacts, or blurrier images with less noticeable artifacts.


4) Does using the upscaling refinement options change your preferred upscaling/doubling algorithm? Which did you prefer without upscaling refinement? Which do you prefer with upscaling refinement?

When using upscaling refinement the upscaling algorithm used seems to make far less difference than if no refinement (or image enhancement for that matter) was selected. While I had preferences prior to the upscaling refinement options being added I no longer have them when either image enhancement or upscaling refinement is active.

Of the SuperRes presets I prefer the image quality/performance of the NEDI preset as opposed to the NNEDI3 presets.


P.S: Forgot:

8) Do you prefer "linear light" for FineSharp turned on or off?
9) Do you like the LumaSharpen "experimental limiter" turned on or off?
Thanks!! :)
When using FineSharp as a image enhancement I seem to prefer it with liner light turned on, but when I'm using FineSharp as an upscaling refinement option I like it better with linear light turned off.
I don't think I am seeing a difference between experimental limiter being unchecked or checked.

[MysteryX]

That's weird. I found SuperRes to make quality considerably worse with super lo-res material (240-360p) . The more passes I have it do the worse the effect. Most of my super lo-res material is DVR/TIVO/VHS/Capture card rips from late 90's to mid 2000's. Needless to say they aren't pristine, tbh though, I don't think you will get pristine image quality at those resolution anyways. If there is any type of blocking or aliasing it makes matters worse. When I try to compensate with increasing softness or anti-alaising it creates very weird artifacts. I lack the knowledge to properly describe it but, it looks like I put plastic wrap over my screen. Strange distortions on edges and such. This is leaving the settings at default. It gets much worse when increasing softness or anti-alaising to compensate.
Here's a sample "bad quality" 288p VCD video.

This is with Jinc3+AR upscaling, with Spline4+AR chroma
http://s30.postimg.org/94e0nxhz1/Jinc.png (http://postimg.org/image/94e0nxhz1/)

This is with Bicubic+AR upscaling and 1 pass of SuperRes with default settings, and Spline4+AR chroma
http://s30.postimg.org/9smv6vgot/Super_Res.png (http://postimg.org/image/9smv6vgot/)

I prefer the 2nd version with Bicubic+SuperRes.

[Ver Greeneyes]

Here's a sample "bad quality" 288p VCD video.

This is with Jinc3+AR upscaling, with Spline4+AR chroma
http://s30.postimg.org/94e0nxhz1/Jinc.png (http://postimg.org/image/94e0nxhz1/)

This is with Bicubic+AR upscaling and 1 pass of SuperRes with default settings, and Spline4+AR chroma
http://s30.postimg.org/9smv6vgot/Super_Res.png (http://postimg.org/image/9smv6vgot/)

I prefer the 2nd version with Bicubic+SuperRes.
Man, that frame is screaming for some sort of deblocking. What's weird to me is that the gradients inside the blocks don't seem to meet up at all at the edges - the image almost looks scrambled. Are the smooth gradients inside each block a result of using debanding?

Still, Super Res does make it look slightly less awful.

[XRyche]

Here's a sample "bad quality" 288p VCD video.

This is with Jinc3+AR upscaling, with Spline4+AR chroma
http://s30.postimg.org/94e0nxhz1/Jinc.png (http://postimg.org/image/94e0nxhz1/)

This is with Bicubic+AR upscaling and 1 pass of SuperRes with default settings, and Spline4+AR chroma
http://s30.postimg.org/9smv6vgot/Super_Res.png (http://postimg.org/image/9smv6vgot/)

I prefer the 2nd version with Bicubic+SuperRes.

Ok that were really, really, really bad. I personally don't have anything that bad in my lo-res collection. If I did, I got rid of it long ago. I don't think any kind of post processing would make that watchable for me. Even most of my old VHS rips are in better condition than that. That being said, SuperRes does make it look "less horrible". It's so distorted that just about anything would help it.

I've been using an old R.E.M. video as a test video. I'll post some screenshots of the distortions I'm getting a little latter in the day.

[lanzorg]

Why not implementing madvr preset selector with predifined profiles by gpu performance?
A combobox selector with these for example:
- madVR Low
- madVR Medium
- madVR High

[michkrol]

The possibility of implementing presets was discussed some (rather long) time ago and it's not as easy to realise as it sounds.

My understanding of the matter is as follows:
First of all, some (most?) settings are based purely on user preference.
Second, to get most of your GPU, you should make profiles for different source resolutions and frame rates, which can make a really long list.
Third, your performance depends greatly also on target (screen) resolution.
Fourth, to get the most of madVR, your settings should depend on the type of your content (cartoons/anime/live-action/sports/...) and it's quality (old VHS rips/TV/DVD/BluRay/...).
Fifth, you need to take into account that NNEDI (or rather OpenCL) performs horribly on some overall fast GPUs, because of driver's bugs or old architecture.
The list goes on.

To sum up, you can't make presets that work for everyone on every hardware with every content.
To get even close, you'd need lots of work and users would still use their own, custom settings.

That said, there are lots of madVR setting guides (good and bad ones) on the web and the default settings are a good starting point for your own setup. :readguid:

[baii]

I find that blocks is much more apparent when video is paused. When the video plays, blocks become less of a concern.
I prefer nnedi3 over jinc+refinement for large scale factor.
@mysteryx can you also try compare say nnedi3 32/64 for that frame?

Sent from my 306SH

[MysteryX]

I find that blocks is much more apparent when video is paused. When the video plays, blocks become less of a concern.
I prefer nnedi3 over jinc+refinement for large scale factor.
@mysteryx can you also try compare say nnedi3 32/64 for that frame?

Sent from my 306SH
NNEDI3 doesn't work on my computer, but I did pre-process and re-encode these videos with an AviSynth script and it looks MUCH better. I'd love to add SuperRes to that AviSynth re-encoding chain but it's not currently possible.

Here's a 288p VCD video
https://mega.co.nz/#!eYIBVT7B!SEPfYY...G5bzkGa7DMEMbQ

In comparison, here's the 720p re-encoded version with Denoise + EEDI3 + NNEDI3 + Sharpen
https://mega.co.nz/#!6EhU2ArI!GyIjNk...iMU6Jl_KCkOTTE

[JackCY]

Before I can post a v0.88.11 is released and Shiandow deband is removed? :(
It's useful, it's stronger than high settings of the artifact removal and Shiandow works sort of as clear skin, removing as much or as little as you want of the harshness from images.

The High preset does this a little but only a little, which is fine as otherwise it would be too aggressive.
But for SD video which is often a piece of crap quality the Shiandow 1.00/0.01 + grain is pretty good.
Upscaling with SuperRes refinement is good and using cheap upscale algorithms doesn't really change the quality much compared to when SR is disabled.

NNEDI3, sure can be rather performance hungry but nothing a 280x can't handle. Except that I want to keep the GPU quiet and NNEDI3 tends to load it too much, nonetheless NNEDI3_16+SR works well for upscaling SD, even cartoons.
Using NNEDI3 is pretty much pointless now when there is SR, NNEDI3 only seems to make the image better (pixel peeping) when upscale is 2x or more, mostly cartoons and hard lines.
NEDI seems to offer no improvement at all compared to Jinc3+AR.

SR refine done only once after upscaling is fine, settings can be tuned to your desire in strength and profiles.
BUT please make the step of the upscaling refinements 0.1 instead of 0.01 or let us type the numbers in instead of having 2 buttons with 0.01 increments :( Even holding them takes forever to get from 0.00 to 1.00. The difference with 0.01 steps is non perceptible.

For me, MPCHC + madVR tends to get stuck when closing MPCHC sometimes, doesn't matter what version of MPCHC or madVR. Simply hangs there and has to be killed.

What I would like to see in madVR is a deblocking filter, although I don't need it, and the Shiandow or similar filter that works similar to clear skin, polishing/smoothing the harsh textures of low res when upscaled.

SR is nice even though I hate sharpen and this is practically a sort of smart sharpen. There sure are crazy better SR but then those most likely wouldn't run in real time.

[MysteryX]

Yeah, NEDI doubling... I'm not seeing any advantage over Jinc+AR

[6233638]

Before I can post a v0.88.11 is released and Shiandow deband is removed? :(
It's useful, it's stronger than high settings of the artifact removal and Shiandow works sort of as clear skin, removing as much or as little as you want of the harshness from images.

The High preset does this a little but only a little, which is fine as otherwise it would be too aggressive.
But for SD video which is often a piece of crap quality the Shiandow 1.00/0.01 + grain is pretty good.
I only just had the opportunity to start doing some testing today (only had the time spare to even watch one film this whole month) and my initial thoughts are similar to yours.

Madshi's debanding seems very good at low levels, but Shiandow's seems to look more natural at high levels of debanding - especially with the "add grain" option enabled. At higher strengths, Madshi's debanding can start to look artificial.
Though Shiandow's debanding may lose more detail (I need to spend more time tweaking to see whether that is actually the case) it looks natural when that happens - with filmed footage at least. I haven't tested any animated content - where Madshi's deband may still fare better.

[ikarad]

You are absolutely WRONG about everything.

I have a Dell U2410 which is 8bit+FRC and it can receive 10bit signal easily, in fact it is what I use now in Windows 7 by default.
I can select between 8 or 10bit in nvidia control panel, I use DisplayPort.


I can't find where selecting 8bit or 10 bit in nvidia control panel. Can you help me?

[Ver Greeneyes]

I don't have the option either (GeForce driver version 353.06). I think the monitor has to advertise that it supports 10-bit input, otherwise the driver just won't list 10-bit output as an option.

[nevcairiel]

Thans but Do you know where this option is finding in nvidia control panel? It's for the future when I change my display

Its in Display -> Change Resolution, on the bottom of the page

[ikarad]

Its in Display -> Change Resolution, on the bottom of the page

Thanks.

I have nothing in the bottom of this page
http://img15.hostingpics.net/thumbs/mini_588845Sanstitre.jpg (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=588845Sanstitre.jpg)

[nevcairiel]

I have nothing in the bottom of this page



You need a very recent driver, 352.86 at least, AFAIK.

[ikarad]

You need a very recent driver, 352.xx at least, AFAIK.

I have the last 353.xx

[edigee]

Thanks.

I have nothing in the bottom of this page
http://img15.hostingpics.net/thumbs/mini_588845Sanstitre.jpg (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=588845Sanstitre.jpg)

That option (8bit/12bit, limited/full)only works with HDMI or Display Port connection. Not with DVI.

[huhn]

not really.
looks like wrong driver to me.

http://abload.de/img/windows108rrmf.png

[ikarad]

not really.
looks like wrong driver to me.

http://abload.de/img/windows108rrmf.png

What is your driver?

I have the last driver 353.06

I have win7 64. Maybe it's only avalilable on win8.

[huhn]

352.84

[JackCY]

Madshi's debanding seems very good at low levels,
I've toned my preset down to medium for HQ content after seeing the high removing "a lot" of detail on LQ content.

but Shiandow's seems to look more natural at high levels of debanding - especially with the "add grain" option enabled. At higher strengths, Madshi's debanding can start to look artificial.
For me Madshi's is more selective, as in it better preserves edged detail, more accurately I should say rough detail.
Where as Shiandow's blurs out more and ignores preservation of edges/rough detail. As in it removes more more easily, which is fine for LQ content where it softens the rough detail on gradients/textures.

Though Shiandow's debanding may lose more detail (I need to spend more time tweaking to see whether that is actually the case) it looks natural when that happens - with filmed footage at least. I haven't tested any animated content - where Madshi's deband may still fare better.
Yeah Madshi's is more selective where it gets applied where as Shiandow's seems to get applied everywhere no matter how strong effect you set.

I use Madshi High + Shiandow 1.00/0.01+grain for LQ content (SD, DVD, ...).
480p preset:
if (deintFps > 31) or (srcWidth > 2100) or (srcHeight > 1200) "2160p"
else if (srcWidth > 1400) or (srcHeight > 800) "1080p"
else if (srcWidth > 800) or (srcHeight > 600) "720p"
else "480p"

I couldn't figure out a way to make the decisions based on area due to missing arithmetic, but if someone knows how let me know.

Shiandow 1.00/1.00 removes maximum but starts to also remove useful detail with large radius like facial features, so having the margin minimum ensures the removal is done only at small radius, at least that's how I see it.

http://i.imgur.com/bRLeptmm.png (http://imgur.com/bRLeptm.png)http://i.imgur.com/EpK7LOZm.png (http://imgur.com/EpK7LOZ.png)http://i.imgur.com/yuCp0LVm.png (http://imgur.com/yuCp0LV.png)http://i.imgur.com/lVFSbrHm.png (http://imgur.com/lVFSbrH.png)


Don't know why such a useful post-processing is suddenly removed soon after it was added.
I'm keeping v0.88.10 for sure.

As you can see above, Madshi's does pretty much nothing on rough LQ content even at High, but Shiandow serves nicely to "wash" the image, which true removes a bit of contrast but the rough detail is reduced as much as you like. As long as margin is minimal it's not that crazy with altering features of faces and objects.

[ikarad]

352.84

Maybe in 353.06 this option is not available.

[leeperry]

SR is nice even though I hate sharpen and this is practically a sort of smart sharpen. There sure are crazy better SR but then those most likely wouldn't run in real time.
Totally, I hate sharpening filters but the right SR setttings allow for a pretty much perfect finetuning based on the mVR scaling algos you picked, personal taste, viewing distance etc etc.

NEDI is also nice enough to take care of chroma while it's at it so we got winning combos here IMHO. I haven't truly experimented with SR on chroma yet, though but last time I tried I didn't seem to like it.

1) In my tests medium "error upscaling quality" was quite a bit faster than high, while producing almost the same quality. Do you agree? Can I drop the "high" setting and simply always use "medium"?
I can't see any reason to justify the SR "high" settting.

3) Which combination of settings do you like most? SuperRes alone? Or in combination with FineSharp and/or LumaSharpen? Or maybe just FineSharp?
NEDI > SR > CR AR LL, it's sharper than J3AR alone and it doesn't come with the EE inherent to NNEDI3(as clearly visible in that sample I previously provided (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1722469&postcount=30138)). I still use NNEDI3+SR for tiny videos.

4) Does using the upscaling refinement options change your preferred upscaling/doubling algorithm? Which did you prefer without upscaling refinement? Which do you prefer with upscaling refinement?
Not really, J3AR is the best upscaler(GIGO principle at work) and CC AR LL the best downscaler so why worry? I guess a softer downscaler might be worth looking into later, no big hurry.

5) Which SuperRes parameters do you like?
I currently really like the "non-double defaults" with a sharpness of 28, 29 being too sharp and 27 too soft. I tried to increase the number of passes to 4 but didn't see much improvement, OTOH 2 didn't look nearly as good. I haven't run extensive tests with the other SR settings, hopefully they won't be disappearing anytime soon :scared:

6) For experts: When upscaling with a large factor, which results in more than just one refinement pass (see debug OSD), do you prefer to refine the image after every ~2x upscaling step? Or do you prefer to refine the image only once after upscaling is complete? Of course when refining the image after every ~2x upscaling step, you should lower the values/passes to make the overall refinement strength more similar to refining only once.
Refining after every 2X step makes as much sense from a theoritical POV as it does IRL to my eyes. PQ is pretty ridiculous tbh :devil:

7) For experts: Considering my goal (see above) to find a setting which works for every upscaling factor to maintain the sharpness of the original goal, which exact upscaling algorithm and which upscaling refinement options do you like? I'm hoping to end up with just a low/medium/high setting, where high would maintain the exact source sharpness, and where medium and low would be toned down settings do apply less strong sharpening. Low should provide a small but noticeable sharpness boost (compared to no refinement at all). Medium should be in the middle between Low and High.
I rest my case that the SR settings will depend on a zillion factors such as the display internal processing/dithering(fighting against mVR's), anti-glare layer graininess, personal taste, viewing distance and so on.....I don't see how you could find one-size-fits-all low/med/high settings to this IMHO.

Some ppl will be using J3AR/CC AR LL coz they can, others will go cheaper and will need to increase sharpness afterwards. It makes no sense to me to be forced to enable a sharpening filter when you got the SR sharpness knob......if you somehow manage to make up your mind on presets, please also allow us to input our own settings be it via registry, a folder in mVR's folders or just a simple "expert settings" box.

I would also like to try SR on 1080p if any possible? I like how it sharpens motion blur. It would be great if it wasn't tied to upscaling IMHO as it mostly acts as a "deshaker" if I got it right?

[edigee]

Maybe in 353.06 this option is not available.

It's available. I'm on W7 64 with 353.06. My GTX 960 is connected via HDMI with an old LG L246WH and a 40' Philips full HD HDTV. On both displays I have that option(8/12bit, full/limited RGB/YCbCr). Of course only 8 bit option available for those displays(both are not 10 bit capable).
Althouth on other set up,GT 640 connected with DVI to a Samasung 23 SyncMaster 2333T that option is not available. Same driver.

[JarrettH]

Can we chill on the acronyms a bit? I get it, but it makes things stuttery to read and the search engine won't work

[huhn]

I've toned my preset down to medium for HQ content after seeing the high removing "a lot" of detail on LQ content.


For me Madshi's is more selective, as in it better preserves edged detail, more accurately I should say rough detail.
Where as Shiandow's blurs out more and ignores preservation of edges/rough detail. As in it removes more more easily, which is fine for LQ content where it softens the rough detail on gradients/textures.


Yeah Madshi's is more selective where it gets applied where as Shiandow's seems to get applied everywhere no matter how strong effect you set.

I use Madshi High + Shiandow 1.00/0.01+grain for LQ content (SD, DVD, ...).
480p preset:
if (deintFps > 31) or (srcWidth > 2100) or (srcHeight > 1200) "2160p"
else if (srcWidth > 1400) or (srcHeight > 800) "1080p"
else if (srcWidth > 800) or (srcHeight > 600) "720p"
else "480p"

I couldn't figure out a way to make the decisions based on area due to missing arithmetic, but if someone knows how let me know.

Shiandow 1.00/1.00 removes maximum but starts to also remove useful detail with large radius like facial features, so having the margin minimum ensures the removal is done only at small radius, at least that's how I see it.

http://i.imgur.com/bRLeptmm.png (http://imgur.com/bRLeptm.png)http://i.imgur.com/EpK7LOZm.png (http://imgur.com/EpK7LOZ.png)http://i.imgur.com/yuCp0LVm.png (http://imgur.com/yuCp0LV.png)http://i.imgur.com/lVFSbrHm.png (http://imgur.com/lVFSbrH.png)


Don't know why such a useful post-processing is suddenly removed soon after it was added.
I'm keeping v0.88.10 for sure.

As you can see above, Madshi's does pretty much nothing on rough LQ content even at High, but Shiandow serves nicely to "wash" the image, which true removes a bit of contrast but the rough detail is reduced as much as you like. As long as margin is minimal it's not that crazy with altering features of faces and objects.

your example screen only show the negative effect of both debanding algo at the same time.

not sure what you try to achieve there to my eyes you are simply removing as much details as possible.

[huhn]

Some ppl will be using J3AR/CC AR LL coz they can, others will go cheaper and will need to increase sharpness afterwards. It makes no sense to me to be forced to enable a sharpening filter when you got the SR sharpness knob......if you somehow manage to make up your mind on presets, please also allow us to input our own settings be it via registry, a folder in mVR's folders or just a simple "expert settings" box.

i agree. i find it hard to find a setting that works well overall.

I would also like to try SR on 1080p if any possible? I like how it sharpens motion blur. It would be great if it weren't tied to upscaling IMHO as it mostly acts as a "deshaker" if I got it right?

as far as i know it compares different upscales and sizes so i don't see a way to use it on a not scaled images.

[MysteryX]

I'm doing some testing with SuperRes on 288p low-quality videos.

First I wanted to see what difference the upscaling algorithm made with SuperRes. Jinc3+AR looks great. Bicubic still look good but slighly less. NEDI doubling + SuperRes, however, looks best!

Then, "High" quality makes blocking and artifacts more visible.

Interestingly enough, "NEDI defaults" at high (2 passes) looks nearly identical to "non-double defaults" at medium (3 passes)!

With NEDI, 1 pass @ "NEDI defaults" does look better than 1 pass @ "non-double defaults"

With NEDI + 1 pass @ "NEDI defaults", upscaling with Jinc3+AR gives a weird distortion... Bicubic actually does a better job here!

NEDI+Jinc looks more blurry than Jinc alone, but NEDI+Bicubic+SuperRes looks best.

With "NEDI defaults", instead of 2 passes, I can do 1 pass and increase strength from .65 to .75 and get almost the exact same result. Since SuperRes is expensive to run, you might want to do defaults for 1 passes.

Now... as to whether .65 or .75 is better is up for debate. .75 does make blocking and artifacts more visible... I'd opt for in-between, .70. I prefer this over the 2-passes default.

Activating LumaSharpen has a very subtle effect but it looks nice.

Activating FineSharp makes the artifacts stand out and makes the video look "cartoonish", I leave that off.

Overall, best setting is:
NEDI Doubling + Bicubic(75)+AR + SuperRes NEDI defaults but 1 pass strength .70 medium quality + LumaSharpen
Rendering time: 10.5ms for 288p on 768p

Second best setting is:
Jinc+AR + LumaSharpen
Rendering time: 9.7ms for 288p on 768p

[MysteryX]

Here are more tests on a 480p video on 768p display.

Here, NEDI is too expensive to run...

Option 1:
Bicubic(75)+AR + SuperRes defaults 2 passes
Rendering time: 14.4ms

Option 2:
Jinc+AR
Rendering time: 12.3ms

Results are VERY close... but Jinc+AR looks slightly more natural.

Conclusion: NEDI+Bicubic+SuperRes is a very powerful combination, but if you can't run NEDI, it's not worth trading Jinc for SuperRes.

[XMonarchY]

I've toned my preset down to medium for HQ content after seeing the high removing "a lot" of detail on LQ content.


For me Madshi's is more selective, as in it better preserves edged detail, more accurately I should say rough detail.
Where as Shiandow's blurs out more and ignores preservation of edges/rough detail. As in it removes more more easily, which is fine for LQ content where it softens the rough detail on gradients/textures.


Yeah Madshi's is more selective where it gets applied where as Shiandow's seems to get applied everywhere no matter how strong effect you set.

I use Madshi High + Shiandow 1.00/0.01+grain for LQ content (SD, DVD, ...).
480p preset:
if (deintFps > 31) or (srcWidth > 2100) or (srcHeight > 1200) "2160p"
else if (srcWidth > 1400) or (srcHeight > 800) "1080p"
else if (srcWidth > 800) or (srcHeight > 600) "720p"
else "480p"

I couldn't figure out a way to make the decisions based on area due to missing arithmetic, but if someone knows how let me know.

Shiandow 1.00/1.00 removes maximum but starts to also remove useful detail with large radius like facial features, so having the margin minimum ensures the removal is done only at small radius, at least that's how I see it.

http://i.imgur.com/bRLeptmm.png (http://imgur.com/bRLeptm.png)http://i.imgur.com/EpK7LOZm.png (http://imgur.com/EpK7LOZ.png)http://i.imgur.com/yuCp0LVm.png (http://imgur.com/yuCp0LV.png)http://i.imgur.com/lVFSbrHm.png (http://imgur.com/lVFSbrH.png)


Don't know why such a useful post-processing is suddenly removed soon after it was added.
I'm keeping v0.88.10 for sure.

As you can see above, Madshi's does pretty much nothing on rough LQ content even at High, but Shiandow serves nicely to "wash" the image, which true removes a bit of contrast but the rough detail is reduced as much as you like. As long as margin is minimal it's not that crazy with altering features of faces and objects.


LOL! That is exactly the same content I used to test Shiandow's debanding and all other madVR features as far as Low / Medium Quality content goes.

I disagree though. I sit about 8 feet away from my 40" 1080p HDTV and with my settings + 12bit color depth on my HDTV, the result is much better with madVR de-banding because it leaves enough detail to see the outline of black/dark parts of the image. For example, Captain/Major/Kernel Samantha Carter often wears black tops. With madVR's debanding set to Medium on top and High on bottom, I can see the outline of her boobies when she wears a black top, but with Shiandow's, her chest looks flat and un-sexish.

Sure that detail is quite LQ, but as long as you use the highest quality settings and sit reasonably far enough away, madVR's debanding does an excellent job.


Regarding new features. SuperRes is definitely here to stay! I figured that LumaSharpen for Upscaling does very little, but for Image Enhancement it does quite a lot at its default setting. The same exact content I talked about above (SMPTE 170M) looks a bit too sharp with default Image Enhancement LumaSharpen values. I decrease strength to 0.50 and clam to 0.30 and its much better!


You know, sometimes I wonder if madVR does too much when it tries to improve image quality. The original film image, when played with WMP without madVR rendering, using only LAV decoders looks sharper than madVR's image without LumaSharpen. However, vanilla image also has banding, artifacts, pixelation, etc. madVR HQ rendering settings fix all those vanilla issues and leave the image soft. Then LumaSharpen offsets the softness, but the end image looks both - 1. better IMO and 2. different from the original. The original/vanilla image sharpness looks more natural than madVR + LumaSharpen. I have not been able to restore that vanilla sharpness with any madVR settings.

I need to figure out how to create side by side comparisons shots using different madVR settings. Otherwise its hard to backup what I am saying...

[MysteryX]

Another test for 360p on 768p display...

Option 1:
Chroma Jinc+AR
Upscaling Jinc+AR
Refinement LumaSharpen
Rendering: 10.3ms

Options 2:
Chroma Bicubic(75)
Upscaling NEDI+Bicubic(75)+AR
Refinement LumaSharpen + SuperRes NEDI defaults 1 pass
At strength .70, it's very close but slightly better. I can get away with strength .75 and that definitely looks better.
Rendering: 11.9ms

Option 2 is just still slightly too demanding and I get dropped frames with SVP... so I'll have to stay with option 1. But otherwise, Option 2 would be better.

[iSunrise]

...You know, sometimes I wonder if madVR does too much when it tries to improve image quality. The original film image, when played with WMP without madVR rendering, using only LAV decoders looks sharper than madVR's image without LumaSharpen.
If everything else is the same, which I doubt, you might just have found a bug, worth looking into. madVR only should do what you tell it to do and WMP playback sounds like DXVA, which in turn sounds like either your graphics card's settings come into play or you are not comparing the same settings. What happens if you compare with MPC-HC and you switch between EVR and madVR? Same result as you see with WMP vs. madVR?

I need to figure out how to create side by side comparisons shots using different madVR settings. Otherwise its hard to backup what I am saying...
Screenshots, lots of screenshots. You can compare them with StaxRip's image comparison tool for example, very helpful and fast.

[huhn]

LOL! That is exactly the same content I used to test Shiandow's debanding and all other madVR features as far as Low / Medium Quality content goes.

why didn't you test a debanding filter on banding? for example the background has some.

I disagree though. I sit about 8 feet away from my 40" 1080p HDTV and with my settings + 12bit color depth on my HDTV, the result is much better with madVR de-banding because it leaves enough detail to see the outline of black/dark parts of the image. For example, Captain/Major/Kernel Samantha Carter often wears black tops. With madVR's debanding set to Medium on top and High on bottom, I can see the outline of her boobies when she wears a black top, but with Shiandow's, her chest looks flat and un-sexish.

what banding are you planning on removing anyway?

the main feature of 10 bit output is less banding. but when i see how you talking about the use of a debanding filter i'm not sure if you even know what that is.

Sure that detail is quite LQ, but as long as you use the highest quality settings and sit reasonably far enough away, madVR's debanding does an excellent job.


Regarding new features. SuperRes is definitely here to stay! I figured that LumaSharpen for Upscaling does very little, but for Image Enhancement it does quite a lot at its default setting. The same exact content I talked about above (SMPTE 170M) looks a bit too sharp with default Image Enhancement LumaSharpen values. I decrease strength to 0.50 and clam to 0.30 and its much better!


this is a new feature i don't see any change it will be removed.
this is totally different with debanding a debanding filter was already there. so the question was which do more people like.

You know, sometimes I wonder if madVR does too much when it tries to improve image quality. The original film image, when played with WMP without madVR rendering, using only LAV decoders looks sharper than madVR's image without LumaSharpen. However, vanilla image also has banding, artifacts, pixelation, etc. madVR HQ rendering settings fix all those vanilla issues and leave the image soft. Then LumaSharpen offsets the softness, but the end image looks both - 1. better IMO and 2. different from the original. The original/vanilla image sharpness looks more natural than madVR + LumaSharpen. I have not been able to restore that vanilla sharpness with any madVR settings.

first of all madVR does nothing unnecessary to the image and it outputting it as original as possible unlike crappy WMP.

WMP uses dxva so all the damaging algo from your GPU are altering the image which is just clearly bad.

I need to figure out how to create side by side comparisons shots using different madVR settings. Otherwise its hard to backup what I am saying...

how about screenshoots?

[JarrettH]

And yes, superres seems to work extremely well on high-def videos. I feel like superres acts on a tiny radius (0.5) and successfully brings those details out.

Why does superres have multiple passes anyway? I don't understand the benefit

[huhn]

Maybe in 353.06 this option is not available.

because you can't choice 10 or 12 bit i don't see a huge need for this setting anyway.

nvidia will output 12 bit if possible with a 10 bit input signal if not it will dither the 10 bit input signal to 8 bit. except for forcing 8 bit output i don't see any benefits with this setting at all (if it even forces 8 bit at all.).

And yes, superres seems to work extremely well on high-def videos. I feel like superres acts on a tiny radius (0.5) and successfully brings those details out.

Why does superres have multiple passes anyway? I don't understand the benefit

i don't like more than 1 pass maybe 2 passes it looks not good to my eyes. but it does a very good job with 1 pass.

[MysteryX]

I need to figure out how to create side by side comparisons shots using different madVR settings. Otherwise its hard to backup what I am saying...
Print Screen and paste in Photoshop.

When you edit madVR settings, it instantly takes effect in the player so you can take a different screenshot right away without having to move to a different frame.

Ah! I just figured out that if I disable "fullscreen exclusive mode", I can take screenshots in fullscreen!

[wiFFy]

I think there's still an issue with NNEDI3 image quadrupling on Nvidia, occasionally driver still gets stuck in slow P2 state (but without any visible corruption).
Question is if it is caused by madVR or by the 352.xx driver series (Windows 8.1 x64), which seems a bit unstable.
I'd need to find a completely reproducible scenario to provoke the unwanted bahvior, I guess...350.12 driver worked for me, 352.86 and 353.06 started getting randomly(?) stuck on low power state. I've been using this (http://superuser.com/a/668972) as a band-aid to quickly restart the driver.

On a unrelated matter, the quality that SuperRes produces is absolutely :eek:! I've been mostly testing it on 720p->1080p upscale with lanczos 3 AR w/ SR for chroma and image. My Geforce 840m can't handle NNEDI3 or NEDI without basically stripping all the other goodies out, but I can't say that I feel like I'm missing out.

If I would have to describe the picture it produces in one word, it would be calm. If you compare it to other sharpeners you can't really see the best side of it in screenshots. I don't know the right technical terms for describing the effect or lack of it. But I find the other sharpeners producing extremely annoying un-natural "digital" artifacts in motion, when the video is playing. SuperRes is mostly free of that, until you push the settings to completely over the top, oversharpened level.

On top of that, I also greatly enjoy the perceived 3d/pop-up-effect it produces on my brain.

-EDIT: These comments were made about 1 pass SR with medium quality. Don't have the processing power for hq or more passes. I don't really care for comparing image quality on screenshots. If I can't see the difference in motion, I don't bother with it.

Great job with these recent releases, Madshi!

[AngelGraves13]

Is there a reason why I can't select Jinc for downscaling and am forced to use Spline? The option is there, but it's greyed out.

[Anima123]

Is there a reason why I can't select Jinc for downscaling and am forced to use Spline? The option is there, but it's greyed out.

madVR does not support Jinc for downscaling for now, as I checked last time.

[ikarad]

because you can't choice 10 or 12 bit i don't see a huge need for this setting anyway.

nvidia will output 12 bit if possible with a 10 bit input signal if not it will dither the 10 bit input signal to 8 bit. except for forcing 8 bit output i don't see any benefits with this setting at all (if it even forces 8 bit at all.).


.
The problem is not if it's needing or not needing but why this option deosn't exist on my computer.