madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[TheLion]

BTW, I have a question/request for future.
Is it technically possible to add in madVR a sort of internal supersampling ? I explain. With 1080p screen, you can't obtain the benefits of image doubling and SuperRes without some tricks.
If madVR could let the user set an internal resolution to reach by image doubling (+SuperRes etc..), with downscaling set up, the benefits of quality in HQ content could be very substantial.
It's just a thought, because it's currently feasible, but it's really not ergonomic.

"Internal Supersampling" is something I have suggested and discussed with Mathias in the past. With new options like SuperRes I would love to see this option especially for HQ 1080p content on 1080p displays. In my opinion this may prove to be a very beneficial approach for a "sharpening effect" by supersampling with SuperRes.

I hope Mathias sees value in it! I would appreciate it very much.

[TheLion]

@ madshi, everyone.

Here is a great chroma sample: http://www.mediafire.com/?nyzrd9qt6nv9t41
*I removed all traces of the original name of the movie, but if it is still found somewhere, all rights reserved to the original creators.

Highly academic and certainly not comparable to real world content, but still my first choice for clearly showing the performance attributes of different chroma upsampling algorithms: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9JsGIAbr0VAQ0xMZUNWVm9jU1U/view?usp=sharing

With real content as well as with most other test patterns like e.g. the one linked by viewer (thanks for that!) differences are way too difficult to clearly spot in my experience.

@ madshi:
This is also one example where the new Bilateral option performs especially weak ("sharpness", high frequency detail extraction) imho - SuperRes improves it somewhat.

Interestingly the new super-xbr (especially without SuperRes) shows massive artifacts with this chart when the (new) antiringing filter is activated!

[James Freeman]

Highly academic and certainly not comparable to real world content, but still my first choice for clearly showing the performance attributes of different chroma upsampling algorithms: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9JsGIAbr0VAQ0xMZUNWVm9jU1U/view?usp=sharing

Wow thanks for that!

Lanczos 4 tap is a clear winner with this pattern, no visible Moire at all, nor brightness shift.
Bilateral again, is the weakest of them all, it simply destroys the chroma information.

[TheLion]

Wow thanks for that!

Lanczos 4 tap is a clear winner with this pattern, no visible Moire at all, nor brightness shift.
Bilateral again, is the weakest of them all, it simply destroys the chroma information.

I agree. With this specific test pattern Lanczos8 AR was even better, practically the ultimate performing algorithm ;) But this isn't the whole story...

[James Freeman]

This chroma test pattern also shows that LinearLight in downscaling is a MUST, to look anywhere like the fullsize image.
To me LL always looked a lot closer to the original in term of brightness when watching in a small window.

Try something funky:
Bilateral for chroma, and no LL in downscaling.
You can go no further from the source.... :scared:

I settled on:
Upscaling: Lanczos4 + AR
Downscaling: Catmul-Rom + AR + LL
Chroma: Lanczos4 + AR

[nijiko]

I'm not sure. I would have thought that it works. If it doesn't then please file a bug report on the madVR bug tracker. Thanks.

I don't know how to use your bug tracker.
If the var is after the symbol, the editor says it's invalid.
Such as "> srcWidth".

[Shiandow]

Highly academic and certainly not comparable to real world content, but still my first choice for clearly showing the performance attributes of different chroma upsampling algorithms: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9JsGIAbr0VAQ0xMZUNWVm9jU1U/view?usp=sharing

With real content as well as with most other test patterns like e.g. the one linked by viewer (thanks for that!) differences are way too difficult to clearly spot in my experience.

@ madshi:
This is also one example where the new Bilateral option performs especially weak ("sharpness", high frequency detail extraction) imho - SuperRes improves it somewhat.

Interestingly the new super-xbr (especially without SuperRes) shows massive artifacts with this chart when the (new) antiringing filter is activated!

I would highly advise against using that image to test the new algorithms. It doesn't seem to contain any luma information which messes up both the Bilateral algorithm and SuperChromaRes. Arguably the most accurate result would be a pure black image.

[madshi]

It seems like no need Chroma SuperRes.
So which chroma upscaling algo do you prefer?

I can live without softness option with HQ downscaling enabled.
I think it makes more sense to be able to control strength instead of passes. I think it's a good compromise to have only one pass, but HQ downscaling enabled. Both for performance as for quality.
There are still huge differences between low strength and high strength with these settings.
So my vote goes for just keeping strength as an option, setting passes to 1, enabling HQ downscaling and setting softness to 0.
The strength option could be even more simplified by replacing the value box with templates like we have it with deband. Then it'd be just "SuperRes: low, medium, high".
Edit: But maybe it would also make sense to use 2 passes and instead lowering the strength a bit if one wants the SuperRes effect more distinct with the high setting.
Ok, thanks.

Well possible, the pink flowers also look darker with NNEDI3 64 chroma scaling.

Lower sharpness makes the pink even darker, like if it gets mixed more with green due to blur.
Try disabling the super-xbr AR filter.

if I upscale 1080p Blu-ray to 4K, regardless the algo in Double, low amount of passes in SuperRes will result with a lack of precision. So I have to multiple the passes, and with this state, strength > 0.5 will result to some pixels moving, and you have to renounce using any sharpen if needed. If you add some softness, you can adjust, but why add another process to maybe reach a targeted result you can win with 1 process in less ?
0.35 is a good median setting for clean regular skin, with fantastic precision, and the possibility to add some sharpening if I want/need.
To be simple, in 1080p to 4K, 5 passes @ 0.35 are far more accurates and faithfuls than 1 passe @ 1.0.
But, with 480p to 1080p, definitively, 1 passe @ 1.0 will be better than 5 @ 0.35.
So you like 5 passes @ 0.35 better than 1-2 @ 1.0. Is that visible in a screenshot? Or only in motion? If it's visible in a screenshot, can you make a comparison screenshot that shows the benefit of using more passes with lower strength settings?

BTW, I have a question/request for future.
Is it technically possible to add in madVR a sort of internal supersampling ? I explain. With 1080p screen, you can't obtain the benefits of image doubling and SuperRes without some tricks.
If madVR could let the user set an internal resolution to reach by image doubling (+SuperRes etc..), with downscaling set up, the benefits of quality in HQ content could be very substantial.
It's just a thought, because it's currently feasible, but it's really not ergonomic.
"Internal Supersampling" is something I have suggested and discussed with Mathias in the past. With new options like SuperRes I would love to see this option especially for HQ 1080p content on 1080p displays. In my opinion this may prove to be a very beneficial approach for a "sharpening effect" by supersampling with SuperRes.

I hope Mathias sees value in it! I would appreciate it very much.
It's technically possible. I'm not sure it will actually look better, though. Maybe I'll make a test build some time, but let's take it one step at a time. For now we're collecting feedback on SuperRes with 200% scaling factor.

Here is a great chroma sample: http://www.mediafire.com/?nyzrd9qt6nv9t41
*I removed all traces of the original name of the movie, but if it is still found somewhere, all rights reserved to the original creators.
Thanks!

OK.

Here is an example with a ringing/blooming problem (and other artifacts with hq on). I'm using "refine the image only once" option now. It's an SD source upscaled with s-xbr50 quadrupling. Image is additionally zoomed in 2x in MPC-HC.

no superres
http://i.imgur.com/9R65zEz.png

2pass strength 0.50 softness 0.00 nohq
http://i.imgur.com/mAFZDxk.png

2pass strength 0.50 softness 0.00 hq
http://i.imgur.com/91RmoRJ.png

2pass strength 1.00 softness 0.00 nohq
http://i.imgur.com/hmREzhz.png

2pass strength 1.00 softness 0.00 nohq
http://i.imgur.com/LL7DAKs.png

and to compare with 0.88.13 and the settings i used before (refine the image after every ~2x upscaling step, 2pass, strength 0.50, sharpness -0.50, softness 0.15, AA 0.10, AR 0.10)
http://i.imgur.com/WDyf1Rc.png

I prefer the old Superres look and versatility :) .
Ok, thanks. Maybe something for Shiandow to look into?

Highly academic and certainly not comparable to real world content, but still my first choice for clearly showing the performance attributes of different chroma upsampling algorithms: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9JsGIAbr0VAQ0xMZUNWVm9jU1U/view?usp=sharing

With real content as well as with most other test patterns like e.g. the one linked by viewer (thanks for that!) differences are way too difficult to clearly spot in my experience.

@ madshi:
This is also one example where the new Bilateral option performs especially weak ("sharpness", high frequency detail extraction) imho - SuperRes improves it somewhat.

Interestingly the new super-xbr (especially without SuperRes) shows massive artifacts with this chart when the (new) antiringing filter is activated!
This test image/video has one purpose, and one purpose, only: To look good if the chroma upscaler rings a lot. The more the upscaler rings, the better this image looks. So I would say any algorithm which looks good with this image, should *not* be used in real life.

Ok, to be fair, I'm a bit overdramatic here. This image does have another benefit for chroma upscaling testing: Basically it allows you to check if an anti-ringing algorithm is too strict or not. A good anti-ringing algorithm should not make this image look too bad, just a bit worse than with the AR filter off. So this image clearly shows that the strict AR algorithm I'm currently using for super-xbr is really *very* strict. But on the positive side, it surpresses *all* ringing, while being very fast. I could implement the same AR algorithm which I'm using for super-xbr luma AR, but it would slow down the super-xbr chroma upscaling quite noticeably. And having a strict AR algorithm can sometimes be beneficial, as well (see the blue artifacts (or lack thereof) in viewer's chroma upscaling comparison).

Judging chroma upscaling algorithms is difficult. Judging AR quality is difficult, too. FWIW, Bilateral chroma upscaling and chroma SuperRes both look at the luma channel for guidance. And this specific test image/video has an empty luma channel. That's why it makes Bilateral and chroma SuperRes look very bad. That's not necessarily an indication of real world performance, though.

For a fair and objective analysis of chroma upscaling algorithms, multiple different test images/videos should be used. If you use only one image/video, you're getting only half the picture (or less).

That said, I'm mostly interested in SuperRes feedback atm.

[aufkrawall]

Try disabling the super-xbr AR filter.

Yes, it's the AR filter which leads to the darkening.
But without, the ringing is very annoying. The ringing filter of Jinc doesn't have this issue.

Btw: Lanczos upscaling looks terrible with the cartoon sample. Ringing outta hell...

[madshi]

Oh well. As said above, I could implement a better AR algorithm for chroma super-xbr, but it would be expensive (performance wise).

[SecurityBunny]

The problem is the following: As long as I allow D3D11 to use its default refresh rate, the presentation queues seem to fill nicely. But D3D11 is very reluctant to switch to some refresh rates sometimes. I've implemented a hack to work around the problem, which forces D3D11 to switch to our wanted refresh rate. But with some GPUs and some GPU drivers this seems to trigger this problem with queues not filling. Unfortunately I don't think there's much I can do about it. It seems that your D3D11 GPU drivers simply don't like outputting anything but 59.940Hz, for some reason. I'm not totally sure if it's D3D11 itself, or the GPU drivers which are at fault. Could be either, but I would guess it's probably the GPU drivers.

You could try creating custom resolution for 24Hz output. Or try using this tool:

http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU

Maybe that helps, or maybe not. At this point the only thing I can offer is to either remove the hack I implemented, or to live with the consequences. If I remove the hack, you'll always get 59.940Hz, though, which is probably very far from what you want, too.

You can try some D3D11 games. Can any of them switch to anything other than 59.940Hz with your GPU? I doubt it...



Perhaps that may explain why present queue doesn't fill all the way initially when using 24hz, but it doesn't explain the bug. The bug occurs on all refresh rates as far as my testing goes.

The bug is when toggling to exclusive fullscreen, then windowed, then back to fullscreen again, the rendering and present queue completely drop and the playback stutters. This only occurs with D3D11 10bit. You need to pause the video and unpause it to get the queues to fill properly again. Using D3D9 10bit or D3D11 8bit, I can freely toggle in and out of exclusive fullscreen without queues not filling.

Plus the fact it takes longer going fullscreen with D3D11 10bit than compared to D3D9 10bit/D3D11 8bit.

[JarrettH]

I don't know if this is the best example, but no one seems to be posting film shots...

jinc chroma and luma
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/325/19276101645_ee0025878e_o.png

xbr chroma jinc luma
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/405/19088516910_a34808c583_o.png

xbr doubling jinc chroma
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/421/19270127172_587a8bb604_o.png

xbr doubling xbr chroma
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/554/18653633294_616a825444_o.png

As you can see, it's difficult to tell apart chroma methods, even doubling :p

Any thoughts?

[huhn]

chroma it is just scaled to 4:4:4 the rest is done using image scaling. and chroma scaling has little effect anyway on such an image.

[leeperry]

TYVM for providing xbr-25, I didn't have time yet but I'll recompare it all again tomorrow. This said I was plenty happy with NEDI+SR in 88.13 and I'm afraid that the EE in xbr and NNEDI3 is just part of their design, I mean you want sharper edges you got them duh.......NEDI looks more natural and seems to be less agressively seeking edges, different methods for differents needs IMO. NEDI is perfect for 720@1080p, xbr50 for tiny videos but ideally I would like to find an in-between for untouched DVD's that require something sharp but not overly.

I think it makes more sense to be able to control strength instead of passes.
Totally, I don't use any kind of sharpening and if there has to be only one knob for SR please make it strength so we could all finetune it depending on our rig and personal taste.

[ryrynz]

Why *higher* sharpness? I'd rather say lower sharpness, because Jinc is quite a bit softer than super-xbr 100.


Higher and lower would be good for comparison but my thoughts were if Jinc's ringing was benefiting it then higher sharpness for super-xbr would increase the ringing too, but if you say lower sharpness is a more fair comparison then sure.
I just figured aufkrawall had already determined 100 was the most suitable sharpness to compare Jinc against, but obviously not.



It seems like no need Chroma SuperRes.:rolleyes:

Any chance you can provide those as individual images?

[Warner306]

Oh well. As said above, I could implement a better AR algorithm for chroma super-xbr, but it would be expensive (performance wise).

I think super-xbr150 + AR chroma is a small improvement over Jinc3 + AR. As long it does not incur a large performance hit, it is my choice for chroma upscaling for the future. The improved sharpness is apparent with real-world content.

[aufkrawall]

I personally rather achieve this with new SuperRes for chroma + Jinc AR.

[RyuzakiL]

I personally rather achieve this with new SuperRes for chroma + Jinc AR.

In regards to chroma upscaling (for low-res movies) which is better?

1. Jinc+AR+SuperRes (Default 2/1/0)

or

2. S-XBR-100+AR+ SuperRes (Default 2/1/0)

coz for the life of me i cannot discern any noticeable difference.

but if S-XBR is now much faster than Jinc then i think i will stick to number 2 config.

p.s. if I use S-XBR for Image Doubling does checking Interop Hack adds additional performance? or it is only applicable when using NNEDI3?

[Vyral]

@RyuzakiL

IMO and from what I've read on the thread, the principal difference is that sXBR is faster than Jinc. Also, you can't discern any noticeable difference because chroma upscaling has little impact on the image quality compared to image upscaling.

[aufkrawall]

With movies I hardly see any difference with any HQ chroma upscaling method so far. However, I could imagine that there are edge cases in which the ringing sensitivity can make a difference with low quality sources, but I doubt it would be critical.
So I assume it's not a bad idea to rely on super-xbr for chroma if you aren't watching cartoon content which isn't good quality in terms of ringing.

[Vyral]

I mainly watch cartoon (anime to be more precise) and I haven't noticed any ringing with super-xbr for chroma on HD and F-HD video.
However, it's very noticeable with super-xbr for chroma and image doubling on MD video (480p and lower), that is why I'm still using Bicubic 75 AR and NNEDI32 in this case.

[seriouser]

I'm using SmootMotion to watch 23.978 content on a 60hz display. Concerning the rendering stats should i aim to keep them below the Vsync interval which is 16.67ms or the movie frame interval which is 41.71ms?

[huhn]

below 40 ms

[nussman]

Really? I thought processing have to be done in the VSync interval?

[huhn]

try it out.

a couple of ms below movie frame rate is all you need.

and never forget not all source are 23p.

[vivan]

Really? I thought processing have to done in the VSync interval?All processing (except frame blending) is done in a separate queue (buffer). Blending itself is very fast and done when presenting frames - so to show 2 blended frames it doesn't have to render both of them (again).
So only average rendering time matters - if it would be too high (compared to the average consumption time which is video framerate) queue will drain and there would be no frames to blend and present.

[seriouser]

Thanks for the information!

[aufkrawall]

I mainly watch cartoon (anime to be more precise) and I haven't noticed any ringing with super-xbr for chroma on HD and F-HD video.
However, it's very noticeable with super-xbr for chroma and image doubling on MD video (480p and lower), that is why I'm still using Bicubic 75 AR and NNEDI32 in this case.
I assume that NNEDI3 will never be really replaced in terms of quality (if quality is defined as the absence of aliasing and ringing and cleanest reconstruction of lines).
I hope fast 16nm GPUs will be able to do 1080p60 -> 4k with 64 neurons.

[littleD]

Hello, sorry if thats naive question but how about implementing into madvr option of dynamically set a scaling algorithm basing on gpu usage. I know there are profiles, but you know, there are many different videos. Madvr behaves basically as video game, switching between algoritms is instant and fluent, there are apis of measuring gpu usage, the quality gradation of scaling algoritms is known. What about implementing adaptive - turn on best scaling when available? When scaling takes too much time and makes stuttering, madvr could set lighter scaling to particular videos for fluent watching. Thanks to that we dont have to configure many advanced options. I know user can have taste and prefer scaling one over another, but author can still add list of preferable algos. What about this insane thought?

[leeperry]

Oh wow...mVR is now drastically improving on a weekly basis, can hardly wait for new week :D

So I've been doing quite a lot of testing today and here we go:

-Sorry, I didn't go 200% as I wanted to compare it all in a real-world environment at 1080p in a pitch black room in order to focus on the picture only
-I had all sharpening disabled, using ED2@8bit
-Using J3AR and CR AR LL because they're the best and the GIGO principle does apply IME
-sxbr25 is too soft to be useful to anything, is there any simple way to run it as a PS script in my media player please? Even for tiny videos sometimes 50 is too soft and 75 too sharp, I don't watch anime and I can definitely confirm that sxbr will replace NNEDI3 for me because the latter is too GPU hungry and too artificial looking to my taste. Whenever there are natural elements such as sand, grass or leaves it just looks wrong to me.
-I still far prefer NEDI+SR for 720p@1080p because it looks natural and just really great IMHO :)
-Actually I'm cool with the current stock settings of SR, I mean 2 passes don't seem to be enough and 4 too much, 0.75 seems to hit the spot not being too soft or too sharp, 0.10 softness looks equally good because 0.05 is edgier and 0.15 too blurry and HQ disabled looks a hell lot better too yay! When I enable HQ the "watching through a window" feeling disappears, it looks dull and sorta noisy....really hate the look, major bottleneck at work here......"tout ça pour ça" :scared:

I've compared 13 and 14 quite a lot of times and I can definitely tell that 14's SR is a major improvement yay, the picture looks more natural and well I'm just extremely impressed. Shiandow at the mantrols huh :eek:

[JarrettH]

-I still far prefer NEDI+SR for 720p@1080p because it looks natural and just really great IMHO :)

To me, xbr100 is looking a little too sharp. I tested NEDI+SR (defaults) vs xbr75 doubling alone and they looked pretty much alike except xbr alone will run much faster

[leeperry]

^ I just compared the combos you mentioned and what I like about SR is how it makes motion blur more natural looking, it's even more obvious on 24p IME.

I shoulda mentioned that I did try to increase SR's strength while having HQ enabled but this was still a major no-go to my eyes, I just tried it again and yeah the picture gets fuzzy and noisy as soon as HQ is on.

I fully agree that if anything's currently lacking in mVR it's an sxbr strength knob or at least more steps because 37 might be right up my alley and 87 yours :o

[oddball]

I have some confusion about the fact that there is now sharpening and Super res in 3 different places. If I am using one for upscaling and one for native res do they cross each other? For instance if I tick sharpening under Image Enhancements does it also affect chroma upscaling and/or upscaling refinement? Which order should I be using them in for which settings?

Also. Since there is now a sharpening option can we have a luma denoiser (with sizer and strength) in future builds?

[Dlget]

Hi,
My specs
i5 2500k with gtx 960 , display aoc e2352phz
Why i'm getting dx3d 8bit?
& what color output i should use in nvidia setting? YCbCr or RGB in Ful range???
What should i use for my display 8bpc or 12 bpc?
i watch anime frequently & is my setting ok for it

[XMonarchY]

Why is it I get 0 issues during playback on my 60Hz 1080p HDTV, but I do get crazy number of presentation glitches on my 1080p 120Hz monitor, using identical settings? Average stats rendering time is 15ms and present time is below 6-8 or so in both cases. Max stats rendering time often switches between 16ms and 33ms and present time usually stays at about 33ms, but at times goes to 140ms. I get these presentation glitches only in Exclusive mode, although I tried to disable "present several frames in advance", but that made no difference. Turning off Direct3D 11 made no difference. Enabling/Disabling "present a frame for every Vsync" also made no difference. I also tried to tone down settings to make it easier on GPU (no NNEDI3, no SuperRes, etc), but that also made no difference!

[oddball]

Why is it I get 0 issues during playback on my 60Hz 1080p HDTV, but I do get crazy number of presentation glitches on my 1080p 120Hz monitor, using identical settings? Average stats rendering time is 15ms and present time is below 6-8 or so in both cases. Max stats rendering time often switches between 16ms and 33ms and present time usually stays at about 33ms, but at times goes to 140ms. I get these presentation glitches only in Exclusive mode, although I tried to disable "present several frames in advance", but that made no difference. Turning off Direct3D 11 made no difference. Enabling/Disabling "present a frame for every Vsync" also made no difference. I also tried to tone down settings to make it easier on GPU (no NNEDI3, no SuperRes, etc), but that also made no difference!

Firstly. Turn off any overclocking to rule that out as an issue (I noticed you have your 980 OC'd). DVI or display port? Material you are trying to play? FPS and resolution? Did you reset MadVR to defaults and retry? Also if none of that works try forcing your monitor to 60Hz and retry. Also check your drivers and driver settings.

[MysteryX]

To me, xbr100 is looking a little too sharp. I tested NEDI+SR (defaults) vs xbr75 doubling alone and they looked pretty much alike except xbr alone will run much faster
Agree. NEDI+SR combine very well together. Jinc+SR doesn't work well. I like that XBR has a very low performance cost compared to other algorithms, but it doesn't do nearly as good as NEDI+SR. XBR creates a LOT of ringing around artifacts and distorts the image considerably for low-quality videos (280p, 360p), while I found it to work OK for 480p sources that are clearer.

How do NNEDI3+SR combine?

[JarrettH]

And xbr75 doubling is softer than Jinc AR alone :D

I see what madshi means by "good ringing." Even if you upscale using jinc, you still get indefinite edges (for example, works of art or painted ceramics do not have soft or indistinct lines). The "good ringing" restores soft lines/edges to what the original would have looked like. This tightens up the picture IMO without the usual halo-like ringing.

jinc AR, xbr chroma
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3920/19316643861_fa7625c2ac_o.png

xbr doubling, xbr chroma
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3704/18690206434_b2c74111ef_o.png

[RyuzakiL]

I mainly watch cartoon (anime to be more precise) and I haven't noticed any ringing with super-xbr for chroma on HD and F-HD video.
However, it's very noticeable with super-xbr for chroma and image doubling on MD video (480p and lower), that is why I'm still using Bicubic 75 AR and NNEDI32 in this case.


I have some detective conan episodes in my hard drive in 480p reso. and using SuperXBR for chroma and image doubling produces barely noticable ringing.

My system can't handle NNEDI3 so I think I'll just stick with this config for SD videos (anime and movies)

Chroma Upscaling : SuperXBR75+AR+SuperRes (2/1/0)
Image Downscaling : Catmull-Rom+AR+LL
Image Doubling : All 5 Boxes Checked+SuperXBR75+Always - if upscaling is needed
Image Upscaling : Jinc+AR
Upscaling Refine : SuperRes (2/1/0) + HQ Downscaling + refine the image only once after scaling is complete + apply SuperRes first

p.s. I must say there's a lot of SuperRes going on. Which SuperRes should I disable from the Steps? (Coz having many SuperRes seems redundant)

[QBhd]

Why is it I get 0 issues during playback on my 60Hz 1080p HDTV, but I do get crazy number of presentation glitches on my 1080p 120Hz monitor, using identical settings? Average stats rendering time is 15ms and present time is below 6-8 or so in both cases. Max stats rendering time often switches between 16ms and 33ms and present time usually stays at about 33ms, but at times goes to 140ms. I get these presentation glitches only in Exclusive mode, although I tried to disable "present several frames in advance", but that made no difference. Turning off Direct3D 11 made no difference. Enabling/Disabling "present a frame for every Vsync" also made no difference. I also tried to tone down settings to make it easier on GPU (no NNEDI3, no SuperRes, etc), but that also made no difference!

Is it the same GPU powering both screens? I can't see any reason why this would happen. There must be something else going on in your system. Are you sure your are using a cable (HDMI, DVI, D-port) that supports speeds of 1080p120.

QB

[RyuzakiL]

i hope we get some MadVR benchmark (using MAX NNEDI3 settings)
from guys who just purchased said Monsters hehe.

Hm.. i guess Fury X will be the better buy?

[Arm3nian]

Madshi you should write a madVR benchmark tool like SVP has. Then all the users can upload their results to a public spreadsheet. It would help troubleshoot performance problems by allowing comparisions and give a general rule of what to expect with a certain gpu/machine with different settings.

[j5627429]

i hope we get some MadVR benchmark (using MAX NNEDI3 settings)
from guys who just purchased said Monsters hehe.


I think many of us at this point are interested in getting the most possible sharpness and quality they can with 1080P>4K upscaling, since the alternative is to simply output 1080p to a 4K display and use the display's built-in upscaling (or in my case, pseudo-4K contrast/detail enhancements on my 1080p JVC RS57 projector).

Most people using MadVR for this purpose are looking for a result that is substantially better than the native upscaling of the 4K display, and are willing to pay a bit more than the average HTPC user to get it, especially during this 2Kbluray>4Kbluray interim.

When you think about it, someone spending multiple thousands of dollars for a high quality 4K TV or projector can easily include the $650 of a 980ti into their purchase price if using it in conjunction with high quality MadVR settings gives them perceptibly "around 80 percent of true 4K source material" on good quality 1080p blurays.

I watched Oblivion bluray (lanczos max+AR for chroma and image upscale, with superres refinement) with 1080p and my projector's pseudo-4K processing set fairly aggressively and thought it looked good. After watching the same movie via direct 4K input to my RS57 and using modest MadVR settings, I won't go back to letting the display upscale. The observable difference in detail resolution was jaw-dropping.

With the latest release (thanks, Madshi!) my 1080>4K performance has magically increased and I am able to do image doubling/quadrupling on my AMD 7970, but I am hungry for more!

Regarding Fury X vs. 980ti, it seems like a no brainer. When spending $650 on a video card today, you probably want it to be HDMI2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatible to ensure it is future-proof. GTX960 and 980ti are, FuryX isn't. From what I've read recently, AMD's Fury is no different in 4K output format than my 3 year old 7970.
Personally, I'm trying to decide between the 960 and 980ti. Although 980ti does not have hardware h.265 decode for when we get 4K content, if it allows significantly higher quality settings for 1080>4K without any stuttering/glitches in playback, it is a sacrifice I'd be willing to make.

So yeah, this was an excessively long post to say "I'm also interested in others' MadVR results with 980ti on 4K screens!"

PS:
I have not posted here in years, and wanted to say kudos to Madshi and all the regulars here for all the hard work and perseverance that has continued to make this awesome project a reality!
PPS:
If there is another thread where 1080p>4K uspcaling using HQ madvr settings with the latest high-end video cards is being discussed, could someone please point the way? Thanks.

[huhn]

only HDMI 2.0 can do 4:2:0.

the older HDMI 1.4 spec can do UHD 4:4:4 and RGB up to 30 HZ and if i'm not mistaken in more than 8 bit.

[j5627429]

only HDMI 2.0 can do 4:2:0.

the older HDMI 1.4 spec can do UHD 4:4:4 and RGB up to 30 HZ and if i'm not mistaken in more than 8 bit.

I think you're right. Maybe there is only the 30hz limitation and lack of HDCP2.2 that are the AMD deal-killers for future content, unless a displayport>HDMI 2.0 converter cable can fix everything and allow full output of the new 4K bluray specs in refresh, resolution and color.

With my 7970 and projector setup, the AMD driver only lets me use RGB 4:4:4 and 8-bit color over HDMI at UHD resolution. With 1080p, the option to do 10-bit and 12-bit are available, and with UHD, the higher bit depths are greyed out. The 8-bit limitation could just be my own display's 4K input limitation, though.

[RyuzakiL]

@j5627429

Hm.. If i'm not mistaken if you have a powerful processor, you can count on software h.265 decode so i think 980ti is the best choice.

I'm leaning on Fury X because of the sheer amount of shader processors (good for compute performance), but unfortunately we all know that AMD drivers is crappy for Madvr (It can't run NNEDI3 properly even with Interop Hack).

But I'm not gonna loose hope for AMD, 2016 is coming and with it the 14/16nm goodness for AMD and also NVIDIA. So i'm gonna hold onto my 2X HD7850, SuperXBR seems evolving in every Madvr release so I bet @Madshi can squeeze further performance and quality from it.

P.S. 980ti or Fury X on MadVR still drives my curiosity :D

yeah I vote on an Exclusive MadVR benchmark so everyone can gauge how much quality/performance they can get from particular GPU's maybe even help others on purchase decisions :)

[XMonarchY]

Firstly. Turn off any overclocking to rule that out as an issue (I noticed you have your 980 OC'd). DVI or display port? Material you are trying to play? FPS and resolution? Did you reset MadVR to defaults and retry? Also if none of that works try forcing your monitor to 60Hz and retry. Also check your drivers and driver settings.

OC or not OC makes no difference. I use DisplayPort as it is the only way to get 120Hz on this monitor AFAIK. Content resolution - anything from 720p to 1080p and happens regardless of whether Doubling/Quadrupling is enabled. Refresh rate stays at 120Hz. I very much did reset madVR to defaults, the uninstalled, then reset defaults again, then installed it, then reset defaults again, and restarted in-between those.

I do not want 60Hz, I want 120Hz...

[XMonarchY]

Is it the same GPU powering both screens? I can't see any reason why this would happen. There must be something else going on in your system. Are you sure your are using a cable (HDMI, DVI, D-port) that supports speeds of 1080p120.

QB

Yes, but I turn off one of the screens when I use another. My GPU is always in single-display mode. I use DisplayPort as it is the only way to get 120Hz on this monitor AFAIK. Nothing else going on - Task Manager is clean of any 3rd party services/processes during video playback. I do not use overlay in Steam and I shut down Steam and ALL other apps before playback. I use the latest MPC-HC x86, the latest LAV decoders/filters, the latest ReClock, and the latest madVR.

[yukinok25]

Just wanted to say that the latest version is absolutely astonishing!
The image quality has improved visibly and I am using the same settings as always, no issues whatsoever.

Madshi is there a way I can donate something for this project? Do you need or accept donation?

[XMonarchY]

only HDMI 2.0 can do 4:2:0.

the older HDMI 1.4 spec can do UHD 4:4:4 and RGB up to 30 HZ and if i'm not mistaken in more than 8 bit.

Does 4:2:0 require more bandwidth? Since 4:4:4 is the best option AFAIK, 4:2:0 requiring HDMI 2.0 is kind of backwards, isn't it?