madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[el Filou]

At a cost for sure.What is the cost supposed to be visually?
If you disable that performance optimisation option, you are in effect supersampling chroma when you're displaying 4K on 1080, which I don't think is giving a big quality boost. Am I missing something else there?

[SamuriHL]

What is the cost supposed to be visually?
If you disable that performance optimisation option, you are in effect supersampling chroma when you're displaying 4K on 1080, which I don't think is giving a big quality boost. Am I missing something else there?

Honestly not sure. I was going by some of the earlier comments which appear to be misplaced. 4K video is new to me so I do not claim to be any kind of expert on this one. That's a setting that was recommended to me back when I was having massive issues getting 4K downscaling to work. So I can't compare with that option unchecked to see with my own eyes if there's any quality difference.

[Asmodian]

I am not sure it is actually worse quality. When watching 4K on a 1440p screen it is more complex but for 4K on 1080p this option seems good.

With 4K on 1080p the luma is downscaled to match the chroma and then the image is converted to RGB. This way 2/3 of the image data was not scaled at all!

With 4K on 1440p the luma is downscaled to 1440p and the chroma is upscaled to 1440p, then the image is converted to RGB.

[aufkrawall]

I've not seen this option doing any harm and it saves a ton of performance.

[ashlar42]

It's so relaxing to just not bother with bitstreaming shit and just let the audio fix itself.To what are you referring to? Still x86 Reclock?

[strumf666]

Probably using lav to decode instead of bitstreaming.

[Manni]

Probably using lav to decode instead of bitstreaming.

If that was the case, it wouldn't make sense as if you don't bitstream you'd lose Atmos and DTS:X. It was an option before immersive sound, it's not anymore (unless, of course, you don't care about sound quality).

[el Filou]

(unless, of course, you don't care about sound quality).Or if you still have a standard 5/6/7(.1) speaker setup so Atmos encoding wouldn't bring much difference anyway and/or you'd rather invest your money in fewer but better speakers than more speakers?
In other words, I find insinuating that people who are not interested in Atmos don't care about sound quality is a bit cold. :)

[SamuriHL]

I am not sure it is actually worse quality. When watching 4K on a 1440p screen it is more complex but for 4K on 1080p this option seems good.

With 4K on 1080p the luma is downscaled to match the chroma and then the image is converted to RGB. This way 2/3 of the image data was not scaled at all!

With 4K on 1440p the luma is downscaled to 1440p and the chroma is upscaled to 1440p, then the image is converted to RGB.

I've not seen this option doing any harm and it saves a ton of performance.

Yea it seemed to give me very good quality and excellent performance in the limited viewing I've had so far. I watched Ghostbusters 2016 start to finish and the quality was awesome. My comment was based on the previous comments that it could potentially harm quality (which would make sense in theory given where the option lives, but, your explanation makes sense to me).

[nevcairiel]

If that was the case, it wouldn't make sense as if you don't bitstream you'd lose Atmos and DTS:X. It was an option before immersive sound, it's not anymore (unless, of course, you don't care about sound quality).

Not everyone jumps onto the hype bandwagon of every new format and throws out thousands of dollars of equipment in the process. That has nothing to do with caring about quality, just not falling into marketing traps.

Also, not everyone has a separate room they can plaster with 4 extra speakers or whatever to even make use of this "hype".

I also don't care about 3D because I think the 3D effect in 99% of all movies is rather cheap and doesn't really enhance my experience (even takes something from it due to the glasses), be that in an actual cinema or at home.

Without bitstreaming and without 3D, a setup is just so much more reliable and less crappy, you wouldn't believe it. :p

Don't you play 3D Blu-rays with an external Blu-ray player? You must not care about video quality, you heathen!

[Manni]

Not everyone jumps onto the hype bandwagon of every new format and throws out thousands of dollars of equipment in the process. That has nothing to do with caring about quality, just not falling into marketing traps.

Also, not everyone has a separate room they can plaster with 4 extra speakers or whatever to even make use of this "hype".

I also don't care about 3D because I think the 3D effect in 99% of all movies is rather cheap and doesn't really enhance my experience (even takes something from it due to the glasses), be that in an actual cinema or at home.

Without bitstreaming and without 3D, a setup is just so much more reliable and less crappy, you wouldn't believe it. :p

Don't you play 3D Blu-rays with an external Blu-ray player? You must not care about video quality, you heathen!

I have the highest respect (and appreciation) for your work, but this is complete nonsense. :)

My goal is to reproduce content as it was intended to be seen/heard.

It's not because you don't have any interest in immersive sound or 3D that you should knock it down as "hype".

I play 3D bluray with an external bluray player for critical viewing because to me a frame drop every three minutes is not acceptable and is far more visible than any other improvement in PQ. It takes me out of the film every time I spot one (and that's very often). Once that is fixed for nVidia users (I know it's not your or Madshi's fault but nVidia's), I'll watch 3D with MadVR/LAV, as I do for the rest of my content.

Atmos and DTS:X is the biggest evolution in sound since Dolby 5.1. Like it or not, many creative people are doing amazing things with this tool. Like with 3D, some will use it cheaply, others will use it well.

That has nothing to do with the fact that there is no point in playing UHD Bluray or 3D with MadVR if you get frame drops or SQ loss.

I can live with one frame drop per hour, not with one frame drop every 3 minutes.

I want full sound quality to hear the sound mix as it was intended, as close as possible to the way it's heard in a cinema.

Watch Gravity in 3D and Atmos in a good set-up (i.e. a proper home cinema room), and then tell me it's hype. :)

In any case, MadVR's goal is to provide the best picture quality, and thanks to Madshi, your work and a few others as well we can get this. There is no point in considering SQ less important. I respect your opinion, but it's just that, your opinion. :)

[Manni]

Or if you still have a standard 5/6/7(.1) speaker setup so Atmos encoding wouldn't bring much difference anyway and/or you'd rather invest your money in fewer but better speakers than more speakers?
In other words, I find insinuating that people who are not interested in Atmos don't care about sound quality is a bit cold. :)

No, I'm saying that if you are interested in Atmos and DTS:X you don't want to compromise that. :)

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm only saying that decoding in the source was an option a few years ago as it didn't mean any compromise in SQ. Today, it's not the case anymore if you're interested in getting immersive sound.

If you're not interested in immersive sound, I would argue that you could just as well watch blurays and not get into the "hype" of UHD Bluray. The improvements (especially HDR) might be more visible, but they are not more important than audio improvements brought by immersive sound, IMO.

[ryrynz]

Fair call, I notice frame drops every time they happen now, I recently updated my drivers and it knocked my custom res out and of course I notice this frame drop and had to redo my custom res.
Frame drops/repeats are cancer, I'd rather not take the resolution hit enabling Smooth Motion, so yeah totally understand where you're coming from. Nvidia needs to get it together to improve this out of the box.

[e-t172]

Atmos and DTS:X is the biggest evolution in sound since Dolby 5.1. Like it or not, many creative people are doing amazing things with this tool. Like with 3D, some will use it cheaply, others will use it well.

Watch Gravity in 3D and Atmos in a good set-up (i.e. a proper home cinema room), and then tell me it's hype. :)

I was very impressed by the sound quality of the Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation Blu-ray, which was mastered in Atmos. The thing is… I don't have an Atmos system and was just decoding the normal 5.1 stream :) I strongly suspect that the reason why it sounds so good is not because of the format used or the number of channels (above 5.1 you quickly start hitting diminishing returns), but because they paid extra attention to sound quality during production - it was one of the first Atmos releases so Dolby itself had people there to make sure it sounded perfect.

All that is to say: please make sure to compare apples to apples. When you enjoy a good Atmos soundtrack, the reason you enjoy it might not be because of the extra features and channels that Atmos provides, but because Atmos-mastered movies tend to be more carefully mastered (which has nothing to do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship) with Atmos itself, really). Assuming you have a BS.775-compliant 5.1 setup, you might not hear much of a difference if you discard the additional Atmos information from a stream that is already very good to begin with.

Some people get fooled by "HD audio" (i.e. 96+kHz/24+-bit) for the same reason - they are listening to a different master, and are spuriously attributing the sound differences to the technical format used.

[Manni]

To bring the discussion back on topic, anyone has an answer for these?

Is it possible to call a batch file in an external command in the custom profiles with a variable, such as test.bat variable
I tried with quotes: "test.bat variable" but that doesn't seem to be working.
Thanks!

@Madshi

2) Is it just me or has vertical shift according to A/R stopped working in the latest build? I haven't changed anything in my settings, but the picture isn't shifting anymore according to A/R.

Thanks.

[nevcairiel]

I want full sound quality to hear the sound mix as it was intended, as close as possible to the way it's heard in a cinema

So basically, you'll buy into anything the industry comes up with on that argument alone? Check.

The reality is that one can care about sound and picture quality without buying into every new technology immediately as its released, or without having a huge dedicated home cinema room, which very few people even have the space for. I have high quality sound hardware which has served me perfectly over the years, even with room to expand in channel count if I ever need to (maybe someone will come up with a software decoder for Atmos one day), but replacing my DAC and Amp would have me shelve thousands of dollars worth of hardware, which I'm not willing to do - especially because that would mean I would have to go back to HDMI audio, which I'm so happy to have ditched so many years ago.

As another example, I don't have a HDR screen yet not because I don't care about HDR, but specifically *because* I care about quality (and don't want to buy a new TV for thousands of dollars every few years). I don't want to be an early adopter with a screen that can barely reach 95% DCI-P3 with barely enough brightness and will be left out in the cold with new HDR formats or HDMI 2.1. Technology needs time to mature and only when it does you'll be able to see which will stick around and be relevant in the future.

[varekai]

@nevcairiel

bump...

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1831098#post1831098

Could you have a look at this?

Regards

[Manni]

So basically, you'll buy into anything the industry comes up with on that argument alone? Check.

The reality is that one can care about sound and picture quality without buying into every new technology immediately as its released, or without having a huge dedicated home cinema room, which very few people even have the space for.

I don't know what you are thinking, but you've got the wrong picture in your head. I don't have a huge cinema room, it's a small, converted loft with slanted ceilings which is also my home office. Yes, I'm prepared to work in a black velvet covered room. My screen is puny (88" diagonal 16/9) because that's the biggest I could fit in the room. The room itself only sits two adults and a couple of kids (my family) and occasionally a couple of friends (but not all at the same time). I don't spend thousands of dollars in this. Most of my speakers are second-hand discontinued models, bought from e-bay. I have a great dealer who trades-in my stuff when I upgrade the big things, every 3-5 years (I try to not do the AVR and the PJ the same year!), so I only pay the difference between the new model and the second-hand value of the old one. Also waiting for HDMI 2.1 for the next upgrade. I'm just passionate about PQ and SQ. Anyone with such a passion can achieve this in their home, even if it's a studio flat, if they don't spend the money on alcohol, cigarettes (I buy films) or expensive cars and holidays (I buy consumer A/V gear), which I don't. Is that a crime?

Now please can we get back on topic? :)

[Manni]

Is it possible to call a batch file in an external command in the custom profiles with a variable, such as test.bat variable


To answer this myself, the standard way (command.bat argument) is working fine, it's the external command implementation that is still flaky (at least here), which is why I thought it didn't work.

If I play an HDR file, check that my custom profile for HDR content is active, change the external command to be launched when the custom profile is enabled, and click apply, the command is sent in real-time and it works 100% of the time, which means that it’s not a batch/syntax problem but a MadVR issue that hopefully Madshi will resolve soon.

[mclingo]

I also don't care about 3D because I think the 3D effect in 99% of all movies is rather cheap and doesn't really enhance my experience !

Hi, I just want to add something to this to back up Manni. I used to be take it or leave it about 3D early on, LCD active was pretty trash, heavy glasses and cross talk city, I did however enjoy some movies, mainly the marvels.

In 2015 this all changed, I got a 65 inch LG OLED... O...M...G, 3d on this totally blew me away, I imediately started collecting 3D movies and now have nearly every one worth having.

its not just a bit better than LCD active / LCD passive its miles better and there are some absolutely fantastic examples of well done 3D.

Pretty much all the marvel series look fantastic, the 3D conversion of titanic is something else, I could name loads.

Your're right, there are a lot of crappy ones but for me there are more good ones than crap ones now.

I'm also not a bandwagon jumper, I went 4k only because it was the only 65 inch OLED available at the time and I dont regret it at all.

I do have a basic atmos setup but this does add to my experience, I have a standard 5.1 with two heights and a transducer under my sofa which also massively adds to the experience.

For me, like Manni its about getting close to a cinema experience as I can and that is closer to how the makers of the movie intended.

I was totally gutted when they dropped 3D, I put a thread together on AV forums and a chap on there created a petition which got 14000 sigs, may not seem a lot but 14000 bothering to read and sign up to something means something, it was more sigs than the HDR game mode got on the LGE6 and LG took notice.

I appreciate that 3D isnt for everyone but I cant help feeling those that are against it just haven't had the right experience with it at home.

I and many others would be totally gutted if it was stripped out of MADVR and LAV, i'm glad there are no plans do this.

[nevcairiel]

I appreciate that 3D isnt for everyone but I cant help feeling those that are against it just haven't had the right experience with it at home.

I don't even like it in the cinema, so what chance does home have?

[mclingo]

I don't even like it in the cinema, so what chance does home have?

I actually prefer the home now to if i'm being honest, you just dont get the black performance you get at the cinema, everything look loads better on my OLED.

Sound is defo better at the cinema for me though, my setup is in my lounge and it isnt ideal but its good enough.

I think you might be in a minority here, however we're all glad you are prepared to put your own feeling about 3D to one side and develop for everyone.

Thanks again for all your hard work and for taking the time to engage us all in conversation.

Its very much appreciated.

[SamuriHL]

Fair call, I notice frame drops every time they happen now, I recently updated my drivers and it knocked my custom res out and of course I notice this frame drop and had to redo my custom res.
Frame drops/repeats are cancer, I'd rather not take the resolution hit enabling Smooth Motion, so yeah totally understand where you're coming from. Nvidia needs to get it together to improve this out of the box.I agree. Even with a custom res I wasn't able to eliminate frame drops this time. That's annoying. Before I had it like 1 every 3 hours which is perfect for the average movie. I got it to 1 every 9 minutes before I left for vacation. I'll mess with it more when I get back. Madvr it's great with the custom res feature.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[el Filou]

You mean after every driver update you have to re-do the custom refresh rate optimisation, and it's not guaranteed the results will be as good as earlier? There isn't a way to save the custom refresh rates settings before updating the drivers and restore them afterwards?

[Manni]

I agree. Even with a custom res I wasn't able to eliminate frame drops this time. That's annoying. Before I had it like 1 every 3 hours which is perfect for the average movie. I got it to 1 every 9 minutes before I left for vacation. I'll mess with it more when I get back. Madvr it's great with the custom res feature.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

If you are on nVidia, please can you provide a step by step regarding using CRU to create a custom profile for 1080p23FP that would work with MadVR? I tried and wasn't able to.

[jasonwc18]

What's the relative quality difference between using NGU Sharp in High vs. Very High modes for Luma doubling? They both look excellent on my 120" screen from an 11' seating distance but it's hard to compare them without doing A/B comparisons with individual frames. With Very Sharp, you get High quality (as opposed to Medium) compression artifact removal which is a perk. The madvr GUI shows that the Very High setting yields a sharpness improvement and slightly less ringing but its not clear to what extent this is visible. For example, x264 "Placebo" mode also yields a small improvement but massively increases the performance impact. I'm wondering if NGU Very High is similar.

Also, as a general setting, does it make sense to turn on debanding? I currently have it set to Low/High but since I generally watch high quality Blu-Ray sources, I generally only see a benefit for fade ins/outs. It does makes a significant improvement at the beginning of the Planet Earth II episodes on Blu-Ray (one of the nice thinks about the UHD Blu-Ray's is that the 10 bit color eliminates this banding - clearly visible on the Planet Earth II UHD BDs). I read that the higher settings remove detail so I'm hesitant to use a higher setting for default debanding strength.

[mclingo]

What's the relative quality difference between using NGU Sharp in High vs. Very High modes for Luma doubling? They both look excellent on my 120" screen from an 11' seating distance but it's hard to compare them without doing A/B comparisons with individual frames. With Very Sharp, you get High quality (as opposed to Medium) compression artifact removal which is a perk. The madvr GUI shows that the Very High setting yields a sharpness improvement and slightly less ringing but its not clear to what extent this is visible. For example, x264 "Placebo" mode also yields a small improvement but massively increases the performance impact. I'm wondering if NGU Very High is similar.

Also, as a general setting, does it make sense to turn on debanding? I currently have it set to Low/High but since I generally watch high quality Blu-Ray sources, I generally only see a benefit for fade ins/outs. It does makes a significant improvement at the beginning of the Planet Earth II episodes on Blu-Ray (one of the nice thinks about the UHD Blu-Ray's is that the 10 bit color eliminates this banding - clearly visible on the Planet Earth II UHD BDs). I read that the higher settings remove detail so I'm hesitant to use a higher setting for default debanding strength.

debanding - you lose detail even on low, this should be off and only used for really poor quality content.

[el Filou]

They both look excellent on my 120" screen from an 11' seating distance but it's hard to compare them without doing A/B comparisons with individual frames.Then do comparisons with individual frames. ;)
MPC-HC can go directly to a frame number, I guess other players have that feature too.
It's always best to compare yourself because every setup is different and every person has different preferences.

[jasonwc18]

debanding - you lose detail even on low, this should be off and only used for really poor quality content.

Good to know; then I might as well keep my current settings. With Luma set to NGU Sharp Very High, Chroma set to NGU AA Medium, artifact removal at High, and a 3D LUT in use, I'm getting render times of around 25 ms on a GTX 1070. Debanding brought that over 30 ms.

I have been avoiding the deringing filter for the same reason you mentioned. I read it shouldn't be used on high quality sources.

[Asmodian]

It is pretty small, I could relate it to placebo in x264. It is better, and so is x264's placebo mode, but each step of NGU Sharp is less important. I think the quality v.s. performance hit of NGU veryhigh compared to high is better than x264's placebo compared to veryslow, but not drastically so. The choice is also a bit different because x264's placebo takes a lot more time (and thus power) while NGU veryhigh simply takes more power. You need all NGUs to run in real time to be able to use them at all. :)

Medium is a lot better than low, high is noticeably better than medium, and very high is a bit better than high. At least this is what I noticed during my testing. For luma I always run very high if I can. ;)

For chroma I was convinced to stay at high or below all the time, I have never noticed quality improvements during playback with very high for chroma and there have even been a few examples where very high seemed a little worse. There isn't much fine detail in chroma, sub-sampling is very damaging, so the extra power used for very high is simply wasted.

[ryrynz]

Asmodian's comments were my exact findings also.

[jasonwc18]

It is pretty small, I could relate it to placebo in x264. It is better, and so is x264's placebo mode, but each step of NGU Sharp is less important. I think the quality v.s. performance hit of NGU veryhigh compared to high is better than x264's placebo compared to veryslow, but not drastically so. The choice is also a bit different because x264's placebo takes a lot more time (and thus power) while NGU veryhigh simply takes more power. You need all NGUs to run in real time to be able to use them at all. :)

Medium is a lot better than low, high is noticeably better than medium, and very high is a bit better than high. At least this is what I noticed during my testing. For luma I always run very high if I can. ;)

For chroma I was convinced to stay at high or below all the time, I have never noticed quality improvements during playback with very high for chroma and there have even been a few examples where very high seemed a little worse. There isn't much fine detail in chroma, sub-sampling is very damaging, so the extra power used for very high is simply wasted.

Thanks, this was very helpful!

[Rexian]

I don't even like it in the cinema, so what chance does home have?
You really need to try it with a 2016 OLED (C/E/G6). Of course bigger the better (saw a demo on 77" G6 and it was much better than theater) when it comes to 3D but even on my 65" E6, it looks awesome. Probably because I sit right in front of it and in theater you don't have much control. The active 3D on Samsung sucks and gave me headache at a friend's place and almost wrote off 3D :eek:

[James_b]

MadVR meets old school CRT-projector from the 90's :D (1920 x 816 / 71.952Hz) 2,2 m screen

MPC madVR + DXVA downscaling, Sharpness complex 2 post Scaling.

Nvidea edge enhancement 47% 0-255 + Nvidea Video gamma ramps at 1.24 ---> Moome HDMI-card in Projector, 0-255

CPU Quad 2,4. Videocard, MSI GT 710 2GD3H LP ~900 mHz

https://i.imgur.com/rTf2xkj.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/r9NaqEA.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/LKpJS6P.jpg

[ryrynz]

Unfortunately though having a good 3D experience on a single outdated TV doesn't really make the solution terribly attractive xD

James, upload those to an image host and link em, they'll be pending 4dayz.

[Dodgexander]

1. Does MadVR support hardware acceleration for HEVC?
There is a lot of info out there that states MadVR doesn't support hardware decoding for HEVC, even with 9xx 10xx series Nvidia cards.

2. What is the minimum recommended video card now for upscaling to UHD? I don't care so much about using advance scalers, just basic.

3. Will it be possible to output 2x HDMi, one to an older receiver, one to an UHD display without any issues? I read HDMI clone/extended will work for this purpose. I have a non Atmos AVR but want to keep UHD whilst retaining True HD/DTS HD sound.

[Asmodian]

1) LAV Video does the hardware decoding, madVR has nothing to do with it. Hardware decoding of HEVC with LAV+madVR works very well on my Titan X (Pascal).

2) 1050 Ti, or maybe anything with 3 or more GB of RAM. :p

3) Yes

[huhn]

1. Does MadVR support hardware acceleration for HEVC?
There is a lot of info out there that states MadVR doesn't support hardware decoding for HEVC, even with 9xx 10xx series Nvidia cards.
madVR has nothing todo with acceleration support. lavfilter can decode HEVC and you can renderer them with madVR.
madVR doesn't have decoders anymore.

2. What is the minimum recommended video card now for upscaling to UHD? I don't care so much about using advance scalers, just basic.
1050 ti or you risk running out of memory.
3. Will it be possible to output 2x HDMi, one to an older receiver, one to an UHD display without any issues? I read HDMI clone/extended will work for this purpose. I have a non Atmos AVR but want to keep UHD whilst retaining True HD/DTS HD sound.

this should work but i'm not going to garantie you a issue free playback at this point.
you don't have to clone it you just have to send an image to the AVR that's it.

[Asmodian]

Nvidea edge enhancement 47% 0-255 + Nvidea Video gamma ramps at 1.24 ---> Moome HDMI-card in Projector, 0-255

Ouch. :(

Do that in madVR! Nvidia's stuff is terrible.

[Dodgexander]

Thanks guys, I was surprised how much I had to search to find this answer.

I am an old time MadVR user back when the HD4870 ATI card was good for scaling to 1080p. I take it AMD don't have any viable alternatives to Nvidia's 1050TI?

Anyone using PowerDVD17 and UHD Blu-Rays? I doubt it will work with a separate HDMI audio out so I resigned myself to getting an UHD Blu-Ray player for discs.

[huhn]

if you can find a 560 4Gb you could use that one.

[Dodgexander]

The best I own is a 660 which is 2gb VRAM sadly.

[huhn]

an RX 560 4gb.

you need at least an maxwell, pascal or newer card to get an HEVC 10 bit decoder(not all of these cards have this decoder)

[nsnhd]

if you can find a 560 4Gb you could use that one.

Rx 560 4Gb doesn't have VP9 profile 2 hardware decoder and is slow on madVR NGU, right ? What else as minus in comparison to a Gtx 1050ti ? Is the Rx560 less powerful than the Gtx1050ti in general ?

[Dodgexander]

an RX 560 4gb.

you need at least an maxwell, pascal or newer card to get an HEVC 10 bit decoder(not all of these cards have this decoder)

Thats what I read and you confirm my findings. Basically the 1050ti is the way forward.

From my research, 7xx series have a very limited hardware decoder for HEVC.

9xx series have full decoder.
10xx series same.

But its not that thats the issue here, MadVRs scaling requires more shaders and for that it seems a 1050ti is optimal right now.

[huhn]

Rx 560 4Gb doesn't have VP9 profile 2 hardware decoder and is slow on madVR NGU, right ? What else as minus in comparison to a Gtx 1050ti ? Is the Rx560 less powerful than the Gtx1050ti in general ?

generally yes it was slower (not sure if this is the case for madVR outside of NGU) but supposed to be cheaper but well GPU prices are not what they used to be... the 1050 ti is not heavily affected yet.

it doesn't have a VP9 decoder in general sorry but a hard to use hybrid decoder is not what you want if you are going to use madVR (AFAIK you can't use it out side of browser anyway).

AMD was usual faster with madVR but the polaris NGU problem and the fact that you can't buy a performance AMD GPU for a reasonable price.

[aufkrawall]

debanding is nothing a RX 460 can't do at 1080p50 it's so cheap.
my 960 doesn't really care about debanding and this card is only ~50% faster.
Deband increases render time here by ~30% with RX 560 in WQHD 8 bit. Not exactly very cheap to me.

[sauma144]

Is it normal that black bar cropping feature doesn't work with youtube streams?

[el Filou]

MadVR meets old school CRT-projector from the 90's :D (1920 x 816 / 71.952Hz) 2,2 m screenWaw... :cool:

Nvidea edge enhancement 47% 0-255 + Nvidea Video gamma ramps at 1.24just like Asmodian said: use madVR's post-processing instead of NVIDIA's. Both use the compute units anyway so you don't gain anything by using NVIDIA's.

[Asmodian]

Deband increases render time here by ~30% with RX 560 in WQHD 8 bit. Not exactly very cheap to me.

Debanding happens at the source resolution, are you watching WQHD content?

Debanding is probably the fastest remove artifacts option, nothing would be cheap to you. ;)