madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[ryrynz]

Apples to apples what I've said still holds at least on the Suzuimya image. When checking the FMP image there's almost nothing in it vs NNEDI 64 neurons, a slight sharpness edge is there with NGU newpix3 which was a little surprising, it would still lose out to 256 neurons though. With Suzumiya though, NNEDI3 64 neurons is sharper and by a decent margin too and of course 256 neurons slightly more so. Here I've cut the face away and pixel enlarged by 3x. Newpix's Lines are looking pretty good to me at least.

NGU newpix 3 vs NNEDI3 64 neurons (http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/201351)

NGU newpix 3 vs NNEDI3 256 neurons. (http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/201352)

On another video I'm looking at (Rurouni Kenshin encode off DVD) NGU newpix 3 is ever so slightly sharper than NNEDI3 64 neurons, the images are very close in appearance to each other as well.
Kinda strange how NGU's sharpness seems to be all over the place in comparison to NNEDI3. Didn't some say it's sharper than NNEDI3 256 in some situations?

[70MM]

Its always been said here that NNEDI is better on lesser quality material than NGU, is that because its softer?

So what is better on lesser quality material, NGU or the new pixart?

[ryrynz]

I'm guessing preferences could vary depending on the material. I just tested 640x480 content and it looks near identical to NNEDI3 64 neurons but with much better performance..
I'd rather evaluate whatever madshi cooks up next with this mix of 2/3 or whatever..ATM I still prefer NNEDI3's over all sharper image.
Having sharper fainter lines is important to me, otherwise you get sharp edges with everything else inside looking rather soft & dull.

I think at this point I may end up switching between NNEDI3 and NGU newpix on the fly and observe the differences.. I'm not sure stills will be enough to make a decision.
Still I'd rather not sink time into something that's going to change soon.

[70MM]

I suppose it also depends on the size of the screen one uses....
Everything we show on these pages on a monitor to me can look great, blow them up to my 150" diag scope screen is a very different story.
Here is where I want sharp without showing artefacts and noise.

I love NNEDI but some material can look soft.
Im my experiments with NGU I have to be very careful as its easy to introduce noise to the image if I push sharpness settings...
I have no idea what pixart looks like yet as I havent added it.

But my movies look a 100% better with madvr and they ever did with my Oppos, thanks to madshi!

[madshi]

Can the maximum limits in image enhancements/upscaling refinement be raised? I find that anti bloating softens the image quite a bit, and I can't compensate enough with more sharpness.
Which sharpness algos are we talking about? And which maximum limit would you like to have?

madshi, does mVR work more efficient and/or use less gpu load/resources if aero is on or off on a Win7 64 bit system with a low powered laptop gpu (Nvidia 650M)? I have been using mVR for years & years with aero turned off but would like to know if turning aero on would help out mVR. Thanks
In fullscreen exclusive mode it should not make a difference. In windowed mode, having aero on can help because madVR can switch into "present several frames in advance" mode which isn't working with areo turned off. If you want to use areo, I'd advise to use Windows 8.1, though, because aero is *much* improved in 8.1. E.g. aero has a lot of trouble with multi monitor setups in win7.

Apples to apples what I've said still holds at least on the Suzuimya image. When checking the FMP image there's almost nothing in it vs NNEDI 64 neurons, a slight sharpness edge is there with NGU newpix3 which was a little surprising, it would still lose out to 256 neurons though. With Suzumiya though, NNEDI3 64 neurons is sharper and by a decent margin too and of course 256 neurons slightly more so. Here I've cut the face away and pixel enlarged by 3x. Newpix's Lines are looking pretty good to me at least.

NGU newpix 3 vs NNEDI3 64 neurons (http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/201351)

NGU newpix 3 vs NNEDI3 256 neurons. (http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/201352)

On another video I'm looking at (Rurouni Kenshin encode off DVD) NGU newpix 3 is ever so slightly sharper than NNEDI3 64 neurons, the images are very close in appearance to each other as well.
Kinda strange how NGU's sharpness seems to be all over the place in comparison to NNEDI3. Didn't some say it's sharper than NNEDI3 256 in some situations?
Try the castle image to see an example of where NGU pixart is *noticeably* sharper (or rather more "focused") than NNEDI3, and the difference is much larger in the castle image compared to the Suzumiya image. It's hard to say if it's NGU pixart or NNEDI3 which is all over the place. Depends on which algo you set as "reference", I suppose.

If I look at your screenshot comparison I can agree that NNEDI3 is ever so slightly sharper with this particular image, which of course becomes more noticeable if you stack 2 doublings on top of each other. However, is a tiny difference in sharpness now the one and only thing that is of interest to you? How about good quality lines and natural look?

If you look at the two white dots/circles in the left eye, in the NNEDI3 image the smaller circle seems to be more rectangular shaped compared to the NGU image. This is more obvious when you view the images in 100% instead of zoomed in with nearest neighbor. Or if you look at the left border of the face: There is a faint vertical shadow right next to the left face border in the bottom 3rd of the image. This shadow looks clearly better with NGU than with NNEDI3-256. With NNEDI3-64 this shadow is totally terrible. Or the hair which "meets" the top left corner of the left eye brow is also much better in the NGU image. It seems to me that the NGU pixart result, while overall being ever so slightly softer in this image, overall has the better looking and more natural lines.

Try adding 0.1 AdaptiveSharpen Upscaling Refinement after NGU pixart (after both doubling and quadrupling). The result will look noticeably sharper than NNEDI3-256 while still looking more natural to my eyes. I don't think a tiny sharpness difference should be the one and only factor you're looking at, when judging which algo does better.

What do you think?

Its always been said here that NNEDI is better on lesser quality material than NGU, is that because its softer?

So what is better on lesser quality material, NGU or the new pixart?
NGU pixart and NNEDI3 are very very similar to each other. Standard/classic NGU is totally different. Generally, NNEDI3 and NGU pixart are very good at removing aliasing from the source, while being rather soft. Standard/classic NGU is much sharper, but doesn't handle source artifacts well.

[burfadel]

Which sharpness algos are we talking about? And which maximum limit would you like to have?

Try the castle image to see an example of where NGU pixart is *noticeably* sharper (or rather more "focused") than NNEDI3, and the difference is much larger in the castle image compared to the Suzumiya image. It's hard to say if it's NGU pixart or NNEDI3 which is all over the place. Depends on which algo you set as "reference", I suppose.

If I look at your screenshot comparison I can agree that NNEDI3 is ever so slightly sharper with this particular image, which of course becomes more noticeable if you stack 2 doublings on top of each other. However, is a tiny difference in sharpness now the one and only thing that is of interest to you? How about good quality lines and natural look?

If you look at the two white dots/circles in the left eye, in the NNEDI3 image the smaller circle seems to be more rectangular shaped compared to the NGU image. This is more obvious when you view the images in 100% instead of zoomed in with nearest neighbor. Or if you look at the left border of the face: There is a faint vertical shadow right next to the left face border in the bottom 3rd of the image. This shadow looks clearly better with NGU than with NNEDI3-256. With NNEDI3-64 this shadow is totally terrible. Or the hair which "meets" the top left corner of the left eye brow is also much better in the NGU image. It seems to me that the NGU pixart result, while overall being ever so slightly softer in this image, overall has the better looking and more natural lines.

Try adding 0.1 AdaptiveSharpen Upscaling Refinement after NGU pixart (after both doubling and quadrupling). The result will look noticeably sharper than NNEDI3-256 while still looking more natural to my eyes. I don't think a tiny sharpness difference should be the one and only factor you're looking at, when judging which algo does better.

What do you think?

NGU pixart and NNEDI3 are very very similar to each other. Standard/classic NGU is totally different. Generally, NNEDI3 and NGU pixart are very good at removing aliasing from the source, while being rather soft. Standard/classic NGU is much sharper, but doesn't handle source artifacts well.

It's why I was thinking that adding a sharpening pass to the algorithm would be beneficial, as most people are noticing the softness. This it the reason why I was suggesting a weak unsharp sharpening pass, it might be one of the simplest sharpening filters, but for most of the algorithms it basically just brings it into focus. Supposedly that was the whole point of unsharp to begin with, to reverse the softness caused by digital imagery processing. Since NGU is digital image processing and causes softness...

At least, that's the principle described on Gimp where I believe unsharp originated https://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-unsharp-mask.html

Of course the user can still add adaptive sharpen etc after, the whole point is just to overcome the softness more than actively sharpening the image. Of course anyone can add sharpening after, but the additional step is seen as a fallacy of the algorithm, whereas if the simple (but very effective in this case) sharpening was applied within the algorithm itself, perceptively it would be superior to other options, including NNEDI3 256.

I add a comparison of American Dad, Castle, and the Potatoes of PixartNew3 with Unsharp and NNEDI.

American Dad (accidentally called it Potatoes :D)
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/201374

Castle:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/201375

Real Potatoes:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/201377

[madshi]

You want extra sharpening? Simply activate sharpening in Upscaling Refinement. There's no need to complicate things by adding an extra option/pass to NGU pixart when it's already available right now via Upscaling Refinement.

[ryrynz]

If I look at your screenshot comparison I can agree that NNEDI3 is ever so slightly sharper with this particular image, which of course becomes more noticeable if you stack 2 doublings on top of each other. However, is a tiny difference in sharpness now the one and only thing that is of interest to you? How about good quality lines and natural look?


Lines look good, given the level of performance required and the output achieving NNEDI3 256ish quality, I'm pretty happy with it.


If you look at the two white dots/circles in the left eye..
Or if you look at the left border of the face..
Or the hair which "meets" the top left corner of the left eye brow..


Yeah, I'm aware of all these areas, definite pluses for NGU newpix.



Try adding 0.1 AdaptiveSharpen Upscaling Refinement after NGU pixart (after both doubling and quadrupling). The result will look noticeably sharper than NNEDI3-256 while still looking more natural to my eyes.


0.2 looks a bit heavy handed, 0.1 is okay (after upscale) still not quite as sharp as NNEDI3 256 in some areas but TBH I don't run anything over NNEDI3 64 neurons with the GTX 960 anyway, so likely this is sharper than that. Almost feel there needs to be another sharpener that can pick up on stuff other than just the more major lines.. but I guess that's what I've got Avisynth for.


I don't think a tiny sharpness difference should be the one and only factor you're looking at, when judging which algo does better.


Wasn't really judging what was better as such, just my preference and I wanted to focus on what I felt was the most important considering NGU newpix had closed the gap in all the other areas.

[Damien147]

@ Madshi

Can you do something with the black screen and HEVC in dxva(native)?User is gonna install mpc hc,madvr and is gonna be looking what's goin' on with the black screen as it is the default.
I had hardware decoder to none as suggested but I found problem with high bitrate HEVC in 4k.My pc couldn't handle it(cpu load,dropped frames) and I lowered chroma even to Bilinear.
I can run low bitrate HEVC in 4k with NGU med chroma but for high bitrate it's a no go.It seems that dxva(native) could solve that.
At the current state with high bitrate HEVC and hardware decoder to none it's not worth it to use Madvr at 4k.For everything else it's ''godlike'' but I found this small ''hole''.
I know that your priorities are different now but keep it in mind please.:)

EDIT:


Madvr with bilinear chroma and hardware decoder to none. (http://imgur.com/a/yJTv1)


EVR(custom presenter) with YV12 chroma upsampling shader and hardware decoder to dxva(native). (http://imgur.com/a/m6ykk)


You get this ridiculously high cpu load leading to dropped frames with no real life image quality benefits.

[CruNcher]

Even on older Mid Range 4 Core Systems you can reach acceptable 4K decoding results (if you arent afraid of heating your room with decoding already) and benefit from the overall efficiency improvements depending on the overall bitstream complexity 25Mbits is a good overall bitrate but you shouldn't go higher then lanczos3/4 then if you want additional quality through post.

[Damien147]

Cpu is an old 4 core i5 760 OCed to @3800.Even with bilinear chroma I can't play high bitrate 4k with Madvr.You see the problem?I can play 4k sources with low bitrate and NGU med chroma though.(GPU is RX 470)


Edit:

The 4k file in the example is ~50Mbps.If nothing happens I guess I can settle to 30Mbps and less with ngu med on chroma.
Generally speaking it's not a universal solution.Solution would be dxva(native) support.You paid for your card to do HEVC decoding.:p

[CruNcher]

Nope that System wont cut the minimum requirements we talking 2nd Generation Core I5 at least aka Sandy Bridge IPC + Instruction set.
Also overall MadVRs Shader code is known not to be as efficient on AMDs Driver and Sahader Compiler as it is on Nvidias Driver and Shader Compiler per cycle but also here the RX 470 is overall to weak ;)

30 Mbps is a much more sane max depending on the temporal complexity and decoder efficiency

50 Mbps with even higher Temporal based peaks is hardly anymore in the balpark for that IPC with only 4 Cores.

[Damien147]

With the OC I get 2nd Generation Core I5 performance.I don't have problem anywhere else.I can play everything I throw there from hd to 30Mbps 4k with NGU med.I need a better reason to upgrade cpu.
I am not complaining in the example for the load,I am complaining for the dropped frames and also for the NO benefits in comparison with EVR.Useless high cpu load.

[madshi]

0.2 looks a bit heavy handed, 0.1 is okay (after upscale) still not quite as sharp as NNEDI3 256 in some areas but TBH I don't run anything over NNEDI3 64 neurons with the GTX 960 anyway, so likely this is sharper than that. Almost feel there needs to be another sharpener that can pick up on stuff other than just the more major lines.. but I guess that's what I've got Avisynth for.
Well, I had done a very quick test and NGU pixart 3 + AdaptiveSharpen 0.1 produced results that were a lot sharper than NNEDI3. Probably using very low LumaSharpen or "crispen edges" settings would also work. You could try different sharpeners to see which one produces the best results. But honestly, the sharpness difference between NGU pixart 3 and NNEDI3-256 with the Suzumiya image is really low. Almost *any* sort of post-scaling sharpening should remedy the softness difference.

Wasn't really judging what was better as such, just my preference and I wanted to focus on what I felt was the most important considering NGU newpix had closed the gap in all the other areas.
Ok, that's fine. So does that mean you're not sure, anymore, if you like NNEDI3 better than NGU pixart 3 overall? FWIW, I'm still fine tuning pixart, but I doubt it's gonna become much sharper.

Can you do something with the black screen and HEVC in dxva(native)?
What black screen? Last time I checked it with my NVidia GPU, it worked just fine. I don't have a Polaris, so I can't test that.

User is gonna install mpc hc,madvr and is gonna be looking what's goin' on with the black screen as it is the default.
I had hardware decoder to none as suggested but I found problem with high bitrate HEVC in 4k.My pc couldn't handle it(cpu load,dropped frames) and I lowered chroma even to Bilinear.
I can run low bitrate HEVC in 4k with NGU med chroma but for high bitrate it's a no go.It seems that dxva(native) could solve that.
At the current state with high bitrate HEVC and hardware decoder to none it's not worth it to use Madvr at 4k.For everything else it's ''godlike'' but I found this small ''hole''.
I know that your priorities are different now but keep it in mind please.:)


Madvr with bilinear chroma and hardware decoder to none. (http://imgur.com/a/yJTv1)

EVR(custom presenter) with YV12 chroma upsampling shader and hardware decoder to dxva(native). (http://imgur.com/a/m6ykk)

You get this ridiculously high cpu load leading to dropped frames with no real life image quality benefits.
Let's set some facts straight:

High bitrate 4K HEVC decoding via CPU is *very* demanding. Every current CPU will struggle with that. Maybe the fastest can do it (barely), but I would expect CPU usage to be near 100%.

If you have near 100% CPU usage when playing a 4K HEVC file, then most probably you're using software/CPU decoding. If you have near 0% CPU usage, you most definitely are using hardware decoding. So if you look at your madVR vs EVR screenshots, you can see that your madVR screenshot must be from software decoding and your EVR screenshot must be from hardware decoding.

My recommendation is to use "DXVA copyback". But "DXVA native" should work fine, too.

Decoding a video file and *processing* it runs through totally different hardware circuits, so it doesn't really have anything to do with each other. If the decoder doesn't manage to decode the video fast enough, then even Bilinear won't help, because Bilinear vs NGU is running on the Pixel Shaders, while video decoding has nothing to do with Pixel Shaders.

[pose]

Damien147, which MPC version are you using? Try latest nightly build. I also have old i5 and RX 470. I will test some high bitrate 4K video and report back.

[CruNcher]

Well, I had done a very quick test and NGU pixart 3 + AdaptiveSharpen 0.1 produced results that were a lot sharper than NNEDI3. Probably using very low LumaSharpen or "crispen edges" settings would also work. You could try different sharpeners to see which one produces the best results. But honestly, the sharpness difference between NGU pixart 3 and NNEDI3-256 with the Suzumiya image is really low. Almost *any* sort of post-scaling sharpening should remedy the softness difference.


Ok, that's fine. So does that mean you're not sure, anymore, if you like NNEDI3 better than NGU pixart 3 overall? FWIW, I'm still fine tuning pixart, but I doubt it's gonna become much sharper.


What black screen? Last time I checked it with my NVidia GPU, it worked just fine. I don't have a Polaris, so I can't test that.


Let's set some facts straight:

High bitrate 4K HEVC decoding via CPU is *very* demanding. Every current CPU will struggle with that. Maybe the fastest can do it (barely), but I would expect CPU usage to be near 100%.

If you have near 100% CPU usage when playing a 4K HEVC file, then most probably you're using software/CPU decoding. If you have near 0% CPU usage, you most definitely are using hardware decoding. So if you look at your madVR vs EVR screenshots, you can see that your madVR screenshot must be from software decoding and your EVR screenshot must be from hardware decoding.

My recommendation is to use "DXVA copyback". But "DXVA native" should work fine, too.

Decoding a video file and *processing* it runs through totally different hardware circuits, so it doesn't really have anything to do with each other. If the decoder doesn't manage to decode the video fast enough, then even Bilinear won't help, because Bilinear vs NGU is running on the Pixel Shaders, while video decoding has nothing to do with Pixel Shaders.

You also starting to bring the Driver into trouble with 100% Utilization on all 4 Cores (not only Video also Audio) and at the same time getting a stable Audio and Video Rendering without Frame Droops you have to be very precise scheduling depending also on the Underlying OS and also here overall the CPU architecture plays a big role how good it will manage that timer and frequency switching situation :)

If your code isn't excellently Multithreaded and every cycle optimized you should never try to overdo that and go above ~80%

But overall it still depends on the whole System configuration and latency and you have to find out what your system is capable of at that Edge and how well you tuned it ;)

[Damien147]

@Madshi

I pointed the software and hardware decoding thing.
I am not complaining for the high cpu load specifically but for the whole result.If you suggest DXVA copyback then ok,I'm gonna use that but:
With dxva(native) and 10 bit HEVC I get black screen.With EVR and dxva(native) for the same file I don't get black screen and file plays well.
With dxva(copyback) and 10 bit HEVC I get dropped frames and picture slows down and ''skips''.
Yes it's a polaris gpu but if I am the only one ignore me.

@pose

Using latest official mpc-hc.Gonna try nightly to check.Try higher than 30Mbps 4K HEVC .

[madshi]

With dxva(copyback) and 10 bit HEVC I get dropped frames and picture slows down and ''skips''.
Then please post a screenshot of your OSD (Ctrl+J) while these slow downs and skips happen.

[Damien147]

Here you are.dxva(copyback) http://imgur.com/a/doUFv
I can play the file well with ''none''.

[madshi]

Are you sure that's really dxva copyback? Because the decoder queue is almost empty, which means that the decoder is not fast enough. How high is CPU usage in this situation? Does DXVA copyback run smoothly when using EVR?

[Damien147]

Yes,sure.Here is my cpu usage with DXVA copyback http://imgur.com/a/X4Px4 .DXVA copyback with EVR seems better.
With hardware decoder to none I can play well this file with Madvr and same settings.It's a lower bitrate 4K HEVC.

[pose]

Damien147, just tested 4K 60FPS 75.6 Mb/s bitrate HEVC video. Latest MPC-HC nightly build. Latest GPU drivers. Win7 64bit. Intel i5 ivy bridge 3.6 Ghz + RX 470.

Hardware decoder: none (software). 100% load on 4 cores.
Hardware decoder: DXVA2 (copy-back). 35% load on 4 cores.
Hardware decoder: DXVA2 (native). Black screen.

Judging by my OSD stats i can tell, that if you have 100% load on all of your CPU cores then it will BOTTLENECK madVR playback. If your CPU has some room then VIDEOCARD is going to bottleneck madVR playback.

I also noticed that you have SMOOTH MOTION ON. Try disabling it. On my 60FPS sample it made big difference in rendering times.

I also need to remind you that you need to RESTART your video player after you change LAV's hardware decoder settings or changes wont apply.

[madshi]

Yes,sure.Here is my cpu usage with DXVA copyback http://imgur.com/a/X4Px4 .DXVA copyback with EVR seems better.
How do you define "better"? Do you get perfectly smooth playback with EVR and DXVA copyback, same as with low-bitrate software decoding? Or not?

[Damien147]

Damien147, just tested 4K 60FPS 75.6 Mb/s bitrate HEVC video. Latest MPC-HC nightly build. Latest GPU drivers. Win7 64bit. Intel i5 ivy bridge 3.6 Ghz + RX 470.

Hardware decoder: none (software). 100% load on 4 cores.
Hardware decoder: DXVA2 (copy-back). 35% load on 4 cores.
Hardware decoder: DXVA2 (native). Black screen.

Judging by my OSD stats i can tell, that if you have 100% load on all of your CPU cores then it will BOTTLENECK madVR playback. If your CPU has some room then VIDEOCARD is going to bottleneck madVR playback.

I also noticed that you have SMOOTH MOTION ON. Try disabling it. On my 60FPS sample it made big difference in rendering times.

I also need to remind you that you need to RESTART your video player after you change LAV's hardware decoder settings or changes wont apply.

I don't think that smooth motion is the problem.
Tried mpc-hc nightly and I get same result.So for now I'm gonna stick with hardware decoder to none and low bitrate 4k HEVC.....
dxva(copyback)plays well with you?No slow downs and ''skips''?


How do you define "better"? Do you get perfectly smooth playback with EVR and DXVA copyback, same as with low-bitrate software decoding? Or not?


Seems smooth with some slow down ''spikes'' I think.Frame rate gets slowed to 21 from 23.976,so it's not ''smooth''.

[madshi]

Seems smooth with some slow down ''spikes'' I think.
The key question is if the decoder is decoding in full speed or not. So do you get the same fluid playback with software decoding and DXVA copyback decoding, when using EVR? Or not?

[pose]

I don't thing that smooth motion is the problem.
Tried mpc-hc nightly and I get same result.So for now I'm gonna stick with hardware decoder to none and low bitrate 4k HEVC.....


Set hardware decoder to DXVA2 (copy-back) -> restart MPC -> disable smooth motion -> screenshot OSD and post here please.

dxva(copyback)plays well with you?No slow downs and ''skips''?
Plays perfectly.

[QBhd]

@Damien147,

Why is defrag running while doing this? If that is running on the drive you are trying to play back videos from it can cause all sorts of problems. I'm not suggesting it is the problem, but you really should be trying to troubleshoot without that running.

QB

[Damien147]

The key question is if the decoder is decoding in full speed or not. So do you get the same fluid playback with software decoding and DXVA copyback decoding, when using EVR? Or not?

Not same,with EVR and DXVA copyback it's worst than setting decoding to none but better than madvr.

Set hardware decoder to DXVA2 (copy-back) -> restart MPC -> disable smooth motion -> screenshot OSD and post here please.


Plays perfectly.

Oh great,now I get black screen in fullscreen.Here's one without fullscreen and smooth motion off.http://imgur.com/a/X40TS
If it plays perfectly with same gpu then I am the problem but I don't know where....


@Damien147,

Why is defrag running while doing this? If that is running on the drive you are trying to play back videos from it can cause all sorts of problems. I'm not suggesting it is the problem, but you really should be trying to troubleshoot without that running.

QB

Defrag is paused,it doesn't do anything.

[Damien147]

Guys,till now I was avoiding Display Driver Uninstaller (http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/display-driver-uninstaller-download.html) but I am gonna use it now because @pose with same gpu has smooth playback with DXVA(copyback).I am gonna report back.

[xyndv]

Have you tried using a lower value of anti-bloating (e.g. 25%)?

Yes, but I assume that would also apply less of the anti bloating effect.

Which sharpness algos are we talking about? And which maximum limit would you like to have?

I'd like to have a maximum of 10 for AdaptiveSharpen and LumaSharpen (some headroom added)
Although, personally I'd prefer all values to be as unlimited as possible, if only for experimental purposes.

Thanks!

[pose]

Damien147, just did another test with another video source. 3840x2160 23.976fps 51.4 Mb/s bitrate HEVC.

Hardware decoder: none (software). 65% load on 4 cores.
Hardware decoder: DXVA2 (copy-back). 15% load on 4 cores.
Hardware decoder: DXVA2 (native). Black screen.

Perfect playback with full queues.

[Damien147]

Just finished with Display Driver Uninstaller and testing.Same results.
with HEVC:
DXVA2 (copy-back):Jerky playback(slow downs,skips)
DXVA2 (native): black screen

Note that with other non HEVC sources I get smooth playback with DXVA2 (copy-back).

As I said I can get smooth HEVC playback with 4k ~25Mb/s and lower with hardware decoder to none.


I don't get why pose gets smooth playback with DXVA2 (copy-back) and HEVC as we have same GPU.:confused:

DXVA2 (copy-back) would be perfect for me if it worked well with HEVC.

@pose

....and if you play the same file with EVR on DXVA2(native) you won't get black screen.It will work fine.

[clsid]

NVIDIA control panel > Manage 3D settings > Global Settings > Power Management Mode > Select "Adaptive"

[70MM]

Madshi is it possible to sometime get zoom steps up to the start level of (5) in small increments please?
e.g. 1,2,3,4,5

When I screen older scope films 2.40 like Ben Hur, I use zoom 5 (the smallest we have) to zoom the wider than normal black bars to fill my scope 2.35 screen.
Zoom 5 is actually too aggressive and overshoots the 2.35 scope screen too much and Im cropping way more than I really want.
I cant use my Lumagen Pro to do the zoom either as its not activated on the Pro models, and I prefer to do it with madvr anyway, keeps all the scaling in one place.

Its not a feature that probably most here would care about, but for those with 2.35 screens who screen older films it would really be great to have smaller steps on the zoom up to 5.
Thank you for everything else you bring to the table, its a very interesting journey madvr...

[pose]

....and if you play the same file with EVR on DXVA2(native) you won't get black screen.It will work fine.
Probably but i have no use for it anyway. My CPU is good enough for playback of an average non bitrate starved 4K 24fps video. For 60fps videos ill just use DXVA2 copy-back. I dunno whats your problem, man. Try resetting your madVR settings to their default (restore default settings.bat) if you didnt yet.

[Damien147]

Resetting doesn't do anything.
The problem is that HEVC DXVA2(copy-back) works for you and not for me while having same GPU.
I can play everything I throw at Madvr till low bitrate 4k HEVC.
I guess I'm gonna settle with hardware decoder to none and lower that 30Mbps 4k HEVC files.For high bitrate 4k HEVC I am gonna use EVR and dxva2(native) that works. (it's not the solution in the long run)
If DXVA2(copy-back) was working properly with me everything was gonna be great.The strange is that with other non HEVC sources DXVA2(copy-back) works ok.

[Nevilne]

If you stopped to think for a minute you'd see that you're using too demanding chroma upscaling.

[Damien147]

Plays well with same settings and software decoding Nevilne. DXVA2(copy-back) together with HEVC is the problem.

[nussman]

I think I can confirm Damien's report.
Source: Astra SES Demo Channel (HEVC 10bit UHD 50p)

LAV (0.69) DXVA2 native => Blackscreen
LAV DXVA copyback => CPU load immediately rise to >70%, DXVA queue is @1-2/12

It works fine with EVR and DXVA CB with ~30% CPU load.
I think my CPU is too slow for this but I dont understand why it is so much more demanding with madVR.

P.S. My GPU: AMD RX460, newest crimson driver, Win8.1 64bit
P.S.S. Render times are ok, because I use very fast madVR settings for my test.

[madshi]

Not same,with EVR and DXVA copyback it's worst than setting decoding to none but better than madvr.
It's not important if it's better or worse than madVR. The only question is if the decoder is fast enough or not. It seems that for some reason the HEVC DXVA copyback decoder isn't fast enough on your PC. I'm not sure why. Maybe nevcairiel can help there, but you'd probably have to ask him in the LAV thread about it.

I'd like to have a maximum of 10 for AdaptiveSharpen and LumaSharpen (some headroom added)
Although, personally I'd prefer all values to be as unlimited as possible, if only for experimental purposes.
The settings logic currently requires an upper limit, but I suppose I can increase the limits somewhat.

Madshi is it possible to sometime get zoom steps up to the start level of (5) in small increments please?
e.g. 1,2,3,4,5

When I screen older scope films 2.40 like Ben Hur, I use zoom 5 (the smallest we have) to zoom the wider than normal black bars to fill my scope 2.35 screen.
Zoom 5 is actually too aggressive and overshoots the 2.35 scope screen too much and Im cropping way more than I really want.
What is "Zoom 5"? I don't even know which exact setting you're talking about.

[madshi]

I think I can confirm Damien's report.
Source: Astra SES Demo Channel (HEVC 10bit UHD 50p)

LAV (0.69) DXVA2 native => Blackscreen
LAV DXVA copyback => CPU load immediately rise to >70%, DXVA queue is @1-2/12

It works fine with EVR and DXVA CB with ~30% CPU load.
I think my CPU is too slow for this but I dont understand why it is so much more demanding with madVR.

P.S. My GPU: AMD RX460, newest crimson driver, Win8.1 64bit
P.S.S. Render times are ok, because I use very fast madVR settings for my test.
Do you have black bar detection features enabled in madVR? Do things change if you disable those features?

[nevcairiel]

It's not important if it's better or worse than madVR. The only question is if the decoder is fast enough or not. It seems that for some reason the HEVC DXVA copyback decoder isn't fast enough on your PC. I'm not sure why. Maybe nevcairiel can help there, but you'd probably have to ask him in the LAV thread about it.

If you get such high CPU load using CopyBack, either you have a CPU without SSE4 for efficient copy-back, or your GPU just doesn't like doing it (which with AMD is probably a likely scenario, but I don't have any recent AMD cards nor do I really plan to buy any).

Does AMD even do HEVC10 DXVA decoding? I thought they didn't have that yet. If they do, its certainly only hybrid though, which suffers quite a bit from a slow CPU.

If you see a big difference when just switching the renderer, then some of the CPU intensive settings in madVR might be related, like madshi mentioned above, black bar detection perhaps.

[huhn]

the RX 480 can do hardware HEVC 10 bit decoding there is no question. the save limited was at about 125 mbit 60 FPS it even takes time to fill the CPU queue of 128 showing the limited of the decoder. the RX 460 should be the same if i'm not mistaken Aleksoid1978 tested/have a RX 460.

i do some blind guesses here.
what PCIe speed is used?
and does the card have 2 or 4GB Vram?

maybe the newest driver is broken. i returned my RX 480 about a month ago so i have no clue how they perform with new driver.

[70MM]

What is "Zoom 5"? I don't even know which exact setting you're talking about.

Sorry madshi I forgot I have a macro named that but its actually activating your (Zoom Control) if there are big black bars: dropdown box ....reduce bar size by 25%

This is what I use labelled Zoom 5. This removes the black bars on older 2.40, 2.55 titles like Ben Hur, but its removing too much. Im wondering if we could have some smaller steps up to 25% please, maybe 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, then 25%.

Sorry for the confusion....

[Damien147]

It's not important if it's better or worse than madVR. The only question is if the decoder is fast enough or not. It seems that for some reason the HEVC DXVA copyback decoder isn't fast enough on your PC. I'm not sure why. Maybe nevcairiel can help there, but you'd probably have to ask him in the LAV thread about it.

I can play same high bitrate HEVC with EVR and DXVA2(native) though.
With DXVA2(copy-back) I don't get any limitation with CPU or GPU with bottleneck in mind.:confused:

edit:

@nevcairiel

I don't know if you are referring to me but cpu has SSE4.2.



@huhn

I don't know if you are referring to me too but mobo PCIe speed is 2.0 and 4GB Vram

[nussman]

No black bar detection enabled here.

I think I got it.
If I disable P010 (and P016) output in LAV than cpu load decrease at~3x% and its playing just fine (with filled queues etc.).
madVR reports NV12, 8bit then.

[Damien147]

Same bad HEVC DXVA2(copy-back) here.
Dxva2(native) black screen with HEVC points at Madvr and AMD users.

[nussman]

Did you trY to disable P0 and P016 in LAV?

[Damien147]

P010 and P016 you mean?Yes,nothing happened.Same bad perf with DXVA2(copy-back).

[nussman]

Hm ok. Still high CPU load with copy back?