madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[madshi]

That OSD screenshot is from 4096x2160 display mode, though.

[huhn]

yes making it useless got this now.

[ryrynz]

In which way do NGU pixart low/medium lose to NNEDI3-32? More aliasing? Or other issues? In my tests NGU pixart medium seemed to have noticeably less aliasing than NNEDI3-16, at the very least. How do you like NGU pixart low/medium compared to NNEDI3-16? Both are faster than NNEDI3-16, so that's the fairest comparison, I would say.


NNEDI3 32+ does better improving stair stepping with lines than NGU pix high and below. Only very high appears superior in this regard. I don't like NGU low much, medium is fine with a touch of edge sharpening, NNEDI3 16 sometimes wins on the lines and sometimes loses but I still prefer it over NGU pix's processed looking soft appearance (edge sharpening does help this a bit) NNEDI3 also picks up on more edges where NGU does not, in my first example this is seen around the eyes (I use the first frame for reference)

[Damien147]

well i asked him for a screen with a 3840x2160 content sending a 3840x2160 signal.


Sorry,here you are http://imgur.com/a/WR3No

[huhn]

does fit to screen matter for 3840x2160?

and have fun with this: http://www.displayspecifications.com/en/brand/08cd6

[Damien147]

does fit to screen matter for 3840x2160?
Movies resolution or displays resolution you mean?
With 3840x2160 movie and fit to screen off at 4096x2160 resolution you get streched image as we said earlier.
What matters is that we need 1:1 pixel mapping in general,right?

and have fun with this: http://www.displayspecifications.com/en/brand/08cd6

???

[Damien147]

@huhn

So if I understood correctly you have 4096x2160 screen set to 3840x2160 with fit to screen or something similar set to off??:confused::confused::confused:

[huhn]

i have a UHD screen with 3840x2160.

intel defaults to 3840x2160
nvidia defaults to 3840x2160
and AMD been AMD to 4096x2160

of cause i can send 4096x2160 and AMD is doing this by default and my TV reports 4096x2160 back to me.

so the default recommendation of AMD is pretty much worthless. give your intel onboard GPU a try?

with 4096x2160 it is cropping the side of and my screen can't be setup to change the AR it is impossible at UHD. and it is always 1:1 pixelmapping at UHD no matter what.

so my screen is pretty much perfect in this regard and it is nearly impossible to set it up wrong.

so now about your screen.
http://imgur.com/a/WR3No
as far as i can see this is as perfect as it can get(no black bars what so ever and no need for any special setting?). does it matter if you select fit to screen or not? if no you got your answer if it changed something well it highly depends on what.

if your screen get's a 4096x2160 signal it is cropping by default.

so let's just imaging the display is 4096x2160 it would be default starch it to something like 4300x2160 and crop it to 4096x2160.
i don't need to point out how broken the processing would be to do that?
and the fit to screen option on new Samsung screen is to make anything visible without cropping anything.

you could try PC mode BTW. but if fit to screen isn't grayed out you are just wasting your time.

[TheShadowRunner]

I don't have any XP PCs, anymore, sadly! I suppose I can dig out some DVD to test physical playback, but I think if it was really a problem, more users would have reported the problem, no? So XP seems like the most likely explanation. Have you thought about upgrading to Windows 8.1? It's a far better media playback OS compared to XP, and resource usage isn't much higher than XP, either, I think.
Arg, don't bother trying from physical discs, I just ripped 2 of them (to rule out a weird occurence) and the result is the same from HDD: player freeze when seeking on any build newer than (and including) 0.90.4.0.
I have no such issue with mpeg2 .mpg files so it's something related to DVD format for sure.
In your test, are you using the "MS DVD Navigator" source filter?
I don't think many users are still using XP, madVR AND playing DVDs so I'm not surprised nobody else reported the issue..
As for switching from XP to 8.1, solely for this (in my case), is way overkill ^^;

[Damien147]

i have a UHD screen with 3840x2160.

intel defaults to 3840x2160
nvidia defaults to 3840x2160
and AMD been AMD to 4096x2160

of cause i can send 4096x2160 and AMD is doing this by default and my TV reports 4096x2160 back to me.

so the default recommendation of AMD is pretty much worthless. give your intel onboard GPU a try?

with 4096x2160 it is cropping the side of and my screen can't be setup to change the AR it is impossible at UHD. and it is always 1:1 pixelmapping at UHD no matter what.

so my screen is pretty much perfect in this regard and it is nearly impossible to set it up wrong.

I don't have intel onboard GPU.It is cropping with 4096x2160 because 1:1 pixel mapping is off in your TV settings if it exists.I get the same thing with fit to screen to off.



so now about your screen.
http://imgur.com/a/WR3No
as far as i can see this is as perfect as it can get(no black bars what so ever and no need for any special setting?). does it matter if you select fit to screen or not? if no you got your answer if it changed something well it highly depends on what.

if your screen get's a 4096x2160 signal it is cropping by default.

so let's just imaging the display is 4096x2160 it would be default starch it to something like 4300x2160 and crop it to 4096x2160.
i don't need to point out how broken the processing would be to do that?
and the fit to screen option on new Samsung screen is to make anything visible without cropping anything.

you could try PC mode BTW. but if fit to screen isn't grayed out you are just wasting your time.

16:9 on 1.90:1 screen is supposed to have black bars.If not it streches or overscans.
http://imgur.com/a/S0GXC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKRcpCQJW8M (<---skip at 12:01)

I am in pc mode already and fit to screen is not greyed out.Fit to screen has to be on for no overscan or stretches or whatever.1:1 pixel mapping.

[cyberscott]

I need a little help with a profile creation.

Basically, I want to create a separate profile for 1080p material with a frame rate of 29.970. I thought I have it set up correctly as I get the green "check mark" in MadVR but the 29.970 frame rate material is still getting processed under my regular "1080p" profile. Everything else is fine. Here is my current profile set up:

if (srcWidth < 950) and (srcHeight < 700) "SD"
if (srcWidth >= 950) and (srcWidth <= 1420) and (srcHeight >= 700) and (srcHeight <= 740) "720p"
if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) "1080p"
else "2160p"
if (srcWidth = 1920) and (srcHeight = 1080) and (fps = 29.970) "29.970"

Any help would be greatly appreciated! :)

[Ecmslee]

You need to work out your order of precedence. They go from top to bottom where the first matching profile is the one that gets selected. You have "1080p" before "29.970" where the 29.970 video also fits under 1080p, therefore "1080p" is selected. Try formatting the rules like so:

if (condition1) "Profile1"
else if (condition2) "Profile2"
else if (condition3) "Profile3"
else "AnythingElse"

QBhd has a very thorough set of profile rules (https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1718839#post1718839).

[LexSfX]

Hi, madshi! I just updated to the latest madVR and went to watch a tool-assisted speed run video from TASvideos. I always watch these with nearest neighbor upscaling, but when I went to set that in the madVR options, I noticed it was missing! I tried all the other options and nothing is even similar. Please put something like it back. If you don't like the idea of nearest neighbor having inconsistent upscaled pixel sizes, I agree and this shader accurately smooths out extra 1-pixel columns and rows between enlarged pixels, showing no difference from nearest neighbor at integer upscale multipliers:

In Cg shader format: https://github.com/libretro/common-shaders/blob/master/retro/shaders/pixellate.cg
This Python script can convert Cg to GLSL and is compatible with this shader: https://github.com/libretro/RetroArch/blob/master/tools/cg2glsl.py
In slang shader format for use with Vulkan: https://github.com/Themaister/slang-shaders/blob/master/retro/shaders/pixellate.slang

Please put nearest neighbor back and/or add this shader instead! I'm not sure about the rest of the emulated retro gaming community, but I certainly would appreciate it. I've been using madVR for years this way. For the record, I usually watch higher-res videos with Lanczos upscaling, and only switch to nearest neighbor for TASes.

In case the license for pixellate.cg is incompatible, there is a claim that it has a bug anyway, and an improved public domain rewrite here: https://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=523

Also, how do I get an older version of madVR? I overwrote my previous version with the update.

Edit: found it: http://www.videohelp.com/software/madVR/old-versions

For other readers seeking nearest neighbor, the last version with it is version 0.91.3, here: http://www.videohelp.com/download/madVR0913.zip

[huhn]

I don't have intel onboard GPU.It is cropping with 4096x2160 because 1:1 pixel mapping is off in your TV settings if it exists.I get the same thing with fit to screen to off.


no my TV is fine... really because Tv my Tv is for sure not 19/10


16:9 on 1.90:1 screen is supposed to have black bars.If not it streches or overscans.
http://imgur.com/a/S0GXC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKRcpCQJW8M (<---skip at 12:01)

I am in pc mode already and fit to screen is not greyed out.Fit to screen has to be on for no overscan or stretches or whatever.1:1 pixel mapping.

can you do the simple test or not?

i'm way way over simple test patters like this.

simple test:
http://madshi.net/madVR/ChromaRes.png
run this unscaled in madVR and you know more.

[Damien147]

What test?:confused:

[huhn]

the image.

[Damien147]

I can't.I can open it only in browser.
You reminded me another thing that I am looking.It displays 4:2:2(the image) while I have pixel format set to full RGB(4:4:4) and HDMI UHD color on(plus PC mode).No 4:4:4 according to this test.Found another guy with same tv that says that it displays it at 4:4:4 with local lan connection,waiting for a response for HDMI.

I don't get your point.

[huhn]

just drag and drop it on MPC hc or open in a program like paint.
do not scale it.

(web browser scale with the windows DPI setting making them useless)

toggle fit to screen you may notice it your self.

[Damien147]

I had mpc to exit after playback.All good now,I can display it.And to look for what?
I see an 16:9 image with black bars on the side as expected.

[huhn]

well make an image if you don't see the huge difference.

ft to screen on or of is scale the image totally and ruining it.
if your 4:4:4 is even remotely working...

[QBhd]

I need a little help with a profile creation.

....


Any help would be greatly appreciated! :)

As Ecmslee noted I use a lot of profiles... here is a cleaned up version since I re-did it all since April 2015 :)


if (deintFps < 25) and (srcHeight < 641) "univisium24"
elseif (deintFps < 25) and (srcHeight < 719) "718p24"
elseif (deintFps < 25) and (srcHeight < 721) "720p24"
elseif (deintFps < 25) and (srcHeight < 801) "1080p24 cropped"
elseif (deintFps < 25) and (srcHeight < 1081) "1080p24"
elseif (deintFps < 26) and (srcHeight < 721) "720p25"
elseif (deintFps < 26) and (srcHeight < 1081) "1080p25"
elseif (deintFps < 31) and (srcHeight < 353) "352p30"
elseif (deintFps < 31) and (srcHeight < 405) "404p30"
elseif (deintFps < 31) and (srcHeight < 541) "540p30"
elseif (deintFps < 31) and (srcHeight < 717) "716p30"
elseif (deintFps < 31) and (srcHeight < 721) "720p30"
elseif (deintFps < 31) and (srcHeight < 1081) "1080p30"
elseif (deintFps < 61) and (srcHeight < 721) "720p60"


Hope this helps

QB

[Damien147]

well make an image if you don't see the huge difference.

ft to screen on or of is scale the image totally and ruining it.
if your 4:4:4 is even remotely working...

If the other guy with same TV sees 4:4:4 in this image and me 4:2:2 maybe there's something wrong but I'm still looking at it.I can't see something bad...

For a cheap low end Samsung with real 4000:1 contrast I am more than happy.

Fit to screen on
Image with black bars on the side.

Fit to screen off.
Image gets stretched to cover the whole screen,no black bars.

[huhn]

the black bars doesn't matter here.

are the stripes vertical stripes or not?

[cyberscott]

You need to work out your order of precedence. They go from top to bottom where the first matching profile is the one that gets selected. You have "1080p" before "29.970" where the 29.970 video also fits under 1080p, therefore "1080p" is selected. Try formatting the rules like so:

if (condition1) "Profile1"
else if (condition2) "Profile2"
else if (condition3) "Profile3"
else "AnythingElse"

QBhd has a very thorough set of profile rules (https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1718839#post1718839).

As Ecmslee noted I use a lot of profiles... here is a clean up version since I re-did it all since April 2015

Thanks Ecmslee and QBhd for the information! I finally got things working for my particular set-up.
To maintain 4K RGB 4:4:4 for my TV, I'm limited to 30 or 60 Hz and decided to just keep things at 60 Hz. Some of my 29.970 fps content needed lower settings than the 24 frame material@60Hz so this makes things automatic for me. Before, I'd have to change the settings manually if going from 24 frame material to 29.970.
This is what I've settle on for now.

if (srcWidth < 950) and (srcHeight < 700) "SD"
else if (srcWidth >= 950) and (srcWidth <= 1420) and (srcHeight >= 700) and (srcHeight <= 740) "720p"
else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps >= 29) "1080p29"
else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) "1080p60"
else "2160p"

[Damien147]

the black bars doesn't matter here.

are the stripes vertical stripes or not?

I can see faintly vertical stripes if I focus.And that means?I don't know.

[huhn]

just make an image with fit to screen on and off that's easier.

but stripes mean scaling and if they are hard to see 4:2:0 processing...

[Damien147]

Off
http://imgur.com/a/hal7o

On
http://imgur.com/a/zt4ni

I am not sure that I am doing it right,they look the same like that.

[huhn]

you are not supposed to scale them and you scaled them and i need a screen from your TV.

[Damien147]

Off
http://imgur.com/a/5MWae

On
http://imgur.com/a/VHSfL

Now?

[huhn]

ok well hmm.
this is going nowhere.

i mean how should your PC even know id fit to screen is on or of and why should the PC care.

open the file in paint take a camera make a picture and post it.

[Damien147]

Paint doesn't give me proper image,also I have a *hitty phone camera.You won't be able to see anything else beyond the ''black bar stretch''.

[huhn]

Paint doesn't give me proper image
it is an 8 bit png it can't do it wrong.
your screen doesn't give you a proper image.

my last words to this simple issue:
http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/201612/20161209095658187/ENG_US-JZATSCK-1.2.2.pdf

Note that the optimal and recommended resolution is 3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz. Choosing a resolution
not included in the tables can result in a blank screen or just the power indicator turning on. Refer to the
user manual of your graphics card for compatible resolutions

have a nice day.

[Damien147]

If you're referring to the resolution thing again go back two pages and check the conversation from the beginning of this page.Also check the pictures posted to you and Madshi.

EDIT: http://mslib.co/read/3820/eng-us-jzatsck-117-160504.html?page=95

Have a nice day too and thanks for the company.

[Ecmslee]

This is what I've settle on for now.

if (srcWidth < 950) and (srcHeight < 700) "SD"
else if (srcWidth >= 950) and (srcWidth <= 1420) and (srcHeight >= 700) and (srcHeight <= 740) "720p"
else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps >= 29) "1080p29"
else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) "1080p60"
else "2160p"

Looks better. A couple things of note- unless you play a lot of oddball resolution videos, you could simplify your rules using just srcHeight.
Also, these two lines here:

else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps >= 29) "1080p29"
else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) "1080p60"

mean that any video with 29 fps or higher use "1080p29" profile. This is probably not what you intended.

With all that in mind, here's an example with your profile rules:

if (srcHeight < 700) "SD"
elseif (srcHeight <= 740) "720p"
elseif (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps < 30) "1080p29"
elseif (srcHeight < 1100) "1080p60"
else "2160p"

[leeperry]

NNEDI3 also picks up on more edges where NGU does not
That's exactly what I fear and what I like about NNEDI3 on hopeless upscales(360x280>1080p for instance), I didn't have much time to play around with the new NGU variants but IME NNEDI3 was unmatched for this purpose...and again NGU bloats too much in combination with SR and it'll always be possible to find test patterns that will look better with one or the other so again I don't see the big deal having three doublers when we got half a dozen linear upscalers.

NNEDI3's OpenCL dependency might be an issue sometimes but NGU would be quite a bit slower than usual on AMD 480's so it's all about finding what works best to your eyes and with your graphic card drivers IMO, having options never hurts.

[ryrynz]

Madshi seems to have the goal of replacing it, I can't imagine it's going to be easy work though, they give yield rather different results.

[jkauff]

That's exactly what I fear and what I like about NNEDI3 on hopeless upscales(360x280>1080p for instance), I didn't have much time to play around with the new NGU variants but IME NNEDI3 was unmatched for this purpose...and again NGU bloats too much in combination with SR and it'll always be possible to find test patterns that will look better with one or the other so again I don't see the big deal having three doublers when we got half a dozen linear upscalers.
I would never cite Handbrake as an example of a good UI, but I do like that they have both a Basic settings UI and an Advanced settings UI. You can use one or the other, but not both.

Their implementation of this concept is pretty awful, but I can envision a 1.0 version of madVR with a clean and simple "Let madVR decide" UI basic mode. The current UI would be accessible to advanced users, but you couldn't use both.

As far as maintenance issues go, future "tweaks" would happen on the current UI side only. On the basic side, any changes would happen behind the scenes. The Basic UI would thus be a "once and done" development effort, at least until version 2.0.

Madshi, what do you think about this?

[70MM]

Guys Im really struggling to understand some stuff regarding 4K HDR, hopefully you can guide me in the right direction.
I have the GTX1080 card, only play ripped BDs and media of a lesser quality. For some time I have only been using 1080>1080 with supersampling.
I play everything at 60Hz only with my JVC X9000 projector as I want fast sync times between different media.
The results are out of this world using madvr, my eyes just about pop out everytime I look at this large images up to 145" dia. on a curved scope screen, breathtaking!

Now I know that the results can even look better if I used madvr in 4K upscaling!
Here is the problem.... Everytime I try to test it I have to go back to 1080>1080 as I just can find the right settings, hopefully you can direct me to the right start.
Now remember I have to use 60Hz for everything as I need fast sync times, this restricts using some of the higher settings as most would here, video card 1080.
Lets start what I try to do...
1. I set the video card to 3840 x 2160 (this seems to remove limited and full)
2. As I use madvr with JRiver, the worst thing that happens is the menus end up tiny for JR and madvr, I dont know how to get them to readable sizes)
3. Under Properties do we still use this section??? I always setup for 16 black and 235 white, but I think one doesnt do it this way for 4K as I notice the settings are more washed out when Im on 4K.
4. To get the image correct I set 16 black and 235 white, yet the image isnt as dynamic looking as it is when Im on 1080>1080, however its very dense/full, and all grain has gone, the image looks wonderful, but colour looks a bit pale.
5. I feel the colour isnt strong enough but here I go wonky, I dont know what to do???
6. I have no idea do I go into the section on HDR which is just at the default settings??

As I can never get any of this quite right I just go back to my wonderful 1080>1080 with supersampling and turn every 4K off.
Ive tried these tests over and over again for months, twice again yesterday and always the same result, I just dont get there, close but.....
I think I have covered the main points here and I apologise for maybe being a bit green.

I have learnt alot from these pages since I started using madvr a year ago, and know it well enough using 1080>1080, but I know I still have a long way to go to master 4K.
Hopefully "you" can help me.
Thanks in advance....

[huhn]

1. are oyu sure you are using RGB not YCbCr?
2. if you are on windows 10 try this -> display settings -> change the size of text... 200%
if this doesn't work properly with jriver go to the forum and ask for the support.

3-5 you are not going in there and set it blindly to 16-235.
there is only one setup where this is correct.

use a proper test file like the black clipping file from AVSforum:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/948496-avs-hd-709-blu-ray-mp4-calibration.html

6. do you have HDR content? BDs are not HDR.

[70MM]

1. Im sure I am on RGB as I always use that for 1080 BDs.
2. Ok will have to check the resizing on my Windows 10.
3-5. I use the file from AVS now for contrast and black and have it set perfectly through Custom so 16 is black and 235 is white.
6. I only use ripped BDs, so is that whole section on HDR a no no page for me, turn it off?

[huhn]

1. just go in your GPU driver and look.
you find everything under "change resolution"
6. default settings are there for a reason leave it at default.

[cyberscott]

Looks better. A couple things of note- unless you play a lot of oddball resolution videos, you could simplify your rules using just srcHeight.
Also, these two lines here:

else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps >= 29) "1080p29"
else if (srcWidth < 2000) and (srcHeight < 1100) "1080p60"

mean that any video with 29 fps or higher use "1080p29" profile. This is probably not what you intended.

With all that in mind, here's an example with your profile rules:

if (srcHeight < 700) "SD"
elseif (srcHeight <= 740) "720p"
elseif (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps < 30) "1080p29"
elseif (srcHeight < 1100) "1080p60"
else "2160p"

:thanks: Your streamline code looks a lot less cluttered than mine. :) I ran it but all my 1080p videos kept going to the "1080p29" profile.
I made a change from:

elseif (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps < 30) "1080p29"
To

elseif (srcHeight < 1100) and (deintFps >= 29) "1080p29"
Changing the "< 30" to ">= 29" now sends each 1080p video to its' correct profile. Gotta love automated profiles!

[huhn]

that's kind of the same as removing the line.
a file with a deint FPS of 30 is not in any spec and doesn't make sense.

[Damien147]

@huhn

Still haven't understood the point of the chroma image thing but it doesn't matter.It happens to have ''problem'' with 4:4:4 these days and also I have : change size and text,apps... in 300% and sometimes it does strange things.
This image posted earlier explains why you need fit to screen on http://imgur.com/a/XiQta
It ''plagues'' everything,from desktop to whatever,not only the player.You also get ''better'' quality image,it removes any scaling.So...1:1 pixel mapping.
Just saying,don't answer.

@Madshi

About the TV resolution thing that you found weird (4096x2160) I found the PROPER TVs e manual that displays supported resolutions and 4096x2160 is there.Including the support of 24hz+ that I asked.
Here it is: http://mslib.co/read/3820/eng-us-jzatsck-117-160504.html?page=95
So...windows displays things correctly and all good.
I like Madvr more and more for helping maximizing TVs capabilities :)


@To all

Is there anything to do to improve playback with 24hz?I get 1 frame repeat every 42 seconds with 23.970 source(still don't know how good or bad that is in practice,checking it these days).
23hz : nope (I don't have)
reclock :nope (I'd like to stay 64bit)
auto motion plus:nope(I find frame interpolation only good for *orn):p:p:p:p:p

Any tweaks or something?

[jmonier]

About the TV resolution thing that you found weird (4096x2160) I found the PROPER TVs e manual that displays supported resolutions and 4096x2160 is there.

If you look a couple of pages before that it says this:

"optimal and recommended resolution is 3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz"

My 2 LG's also support 4096 but that is not unusual or weird. What would be weird would be if 4096 was the native resolution, but it is not for either the Samsung or the LG. It is 3840 for the LG's and for the Samsung (according to the statement above). That is completely normal.

[Clammerz]

@Madshi
About the TV resolution thing that you found weird (4096x2160) I found the PROPER TVs e manual that displays supported resolutions and 4096x2160 is there.Including the support of 24hz+ that I asked.
Here it is: http://mslib.co/read/3820/eng-us-jzatsck-117-160504.html?page=95
So...windows displays things correctly and all good.

It's fine if you think it's "all good", but you are misunderstanding something very fundamental that people have been trying to explain to you.
Note, that "PROPER TVs e manual" you linked says the following (2 pages prior):
Note that the optimal and recommended resolution is 3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz.
The reason for this is because they are telling you that computer graphics and fonts will display most crisp and readable at the native resolution of your panel.
It's saying it "supports" 4096x2160 on the page you linked, but that's not the recommended resolution (which would be the native resolution of the panel).

Your image: http://imgur.com/a/XiQta is a perfect illustration of what happens when you select 4096x2160, you are sending too many dots to the TV and the TV is simply displaying them 1:1, centres the image and truncating the pixels that "fall off" the screen.

Note: DCI 4k is 4096 × 2160. Consumer 4K (UHD-1) is 3840 × 2160. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Digital_video_resolutions_(VCD_to_4K).svg
See how the above image, the DCI is wider? You are sending that, while your TV's native resolution is 4K UHD.

You also need to be careful when you select lower resolutions in windows because video drivers may upscale the image to what it "thinks" is the best. In Nvidia this option is called "Scaling" as seen here:
http://i.imgur.com/uzWk2jw.png
(edit: The selected options in that image are not optimal for what would be ideal in your scenario)

I don't know what the AMD equivalent is.

Hope this information helps. Please understand that people are only trying to help you understand a misunderstanding.

[Damien147]

@jmonier and @Clammerz

The whole point of the conversation was if 4096x2160 existed or not.If it's recommended or whatever comes second.



Your image: http://imgur.com/a/XiQta is a perfect illustration of what happens when you select 4096x2160, you are sending too many dots to the TV and the TV is simply displaying them 1:1, centres the image and truncating the pixels that "fall off" the screen.

Note: DCI 4k is 4096 × 2160. Consumer 4K (UHD-1) is 3840 × 2160. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Digital_video_resolutions_(VCD_to_4K).svg
See how the above image, the DCI is wider? You are sending that, while your TV's native resolution is 4K UHD.


No,this image is like that because I have fit to screen(1:1 pixel mapping) in TV OFF.Here is the same image with fit to screen in ON http://imgur.com/a/FzCMJ.

4096x2160 is 1.90:1,right?This second picture has a movie playing with 1:86:1.It's expected to have a small bar on the side if everything works fine and as intended.Just watch the OSD.




And here is a 4096x2160 movie http://imgur.com/a/CYdYf .Everything works as intended,just check the OSD.


Thank you both though.

[Clammerz]

There is no misunderstanding on our part, please understand. Also people aren't disputing the existence of 4096x2160, that is a misunderstanding. People are disputing the native resolution of consumer screens at 4096x2160. They are also not disputing the "support" of 4096x2160, they are disputing the whether that "support" of the resolution is further processed (shrunk) by the display to fit on the native resolution. Which is what is happening in this scenario.

No,this image is like that because I have fit to screen(1:1 pixel mapping) in TV OFF
Exactly. "fit to screen" means "force all pixels of the incoming stream to fit on to the TV, don't leave any off screen".
"Fit to screen" is not "1:1 pixel mapping". That is a very big misunderstanding.

From what I can gather there are 2 problems in your setup. The misconception of "fit to screen" and AMD "upscaling" 3840 to 4096.

[Clammerz]

And here is a 4096x2160 movie http://imgur.com/a/CYdYf .Everything works as intended,just check the OSD.

I think you are focusing on the wrong points. It doesn't matter what you configure MadVR to do, and what movies you are playing if you are telling your TV to fudge the incoming signal or if your graphics card is fudging the signal behind your back. Of course under a chain of misconfigurations you could end up at a point where things appear "correct", but there are subtle differences and quality compromises you are making to get to that end-goal.

If you aren't concerned with those, then that's fine. But we are saying there's a gap in your knowledge and there is room for subtle improvement by understanding things at a more fundamental level.

[Damien147]

.....just check again what I wrote and the two pictures.About fit to screen in these two pictures and the OSD prove what happens(the off and on thing I mean)Fit to screen disables scaling.


Generally speaking I am a noob but I am not doing any mumbo jumbo here.I am just displaying things with native resolution which I proved that it is 4096x2160 and I don't find any problem anywhere.What is the problem?Black bars in movies?It's expected depending on the aspect ratio.If I put 1.90:1 source there aren't any black bars.I can't see the wrong or the misunderstanding you guys mention.@huhn maybe misunderstood,not me.