How to see banding

[msm595]

I seem to having a lot of trouble noticing most banding in my encodes (which of course is very bad). For instance my friend said he could clearly see the difference between this (banded) (http://yourimg.in/m/p55355l.png) and this this (debanded) (http://yourimg.in/m/h7v4qcn.png), but I can't really see a difference or see the original banding.

I can, however, see the banding in an example he gave me here (http://yourimg.in/m/17e8w08.png), which he says actually has less banding then my example.

Is there any way to train my eyes to see banding and are there any settings I should have for my monitor? My monitor is a new IPS LCD, the Dell U2211H. Or should I have no lighting in my room, more lighting? (I am looking at these and got the examples from AvsPmod if that effects anything).

[Bloax]

Your friend is weird, that's what I can say.
Because there's no "actual" banding in the "banded" image, which looks debanded already.
And the "debanded" just looks more dithered.

As for the banding example, it clearly has a lot more banding going on, since for all I can see the originally un-debanded version seems to use lots of grayscale gradients.
And let's just say that 256 colors stretched over a big area is going to lack colors quite often. :P

[Didée]

Try the following: In a crowded street, point in the air, cry "THERE! THERE!", then walk away.

[msm595]

Interesting, so at least I'm not semi-blind. I had been staring at it for over an hour and messing with my monitor settings xD.

My friend said this about the supposedly banded one (when we were first talking): "there is banding, mostly noticeable at the left side where it gradients to black." So there is no actual banding there? He also said there was a clear difference between the two images.

The other image I gave him he said had banding in the corners where it goes to white here (http://yourimg.in/m/238z1vd.png), and I see what seems to be banding, but is it actually? I feel like it might just be an effect. If it makes a difference the source is a BD.

[Bloax]

That most certainly looks like banding, it is - however, debanded already.
There's a big difference between raw banding and debanded banding, though.

[Didée]

Perhaps it's your friend who has a physical banding problem with his TFT monitor, requiring more dither/noise to conceal ...

[msm595]

I guess it could be my friend, he seemed to insist that his monitor was pretty good though: "there's 3 monitors i have access to in the house, all use default settings. 1 is a brand new LED, which is god amazing, then 2 other lcds, and for banding testing i just use mine, which has average specs in terms of colors. either way i could probably see it on all of them. it's not terrible banding like the stuff steins;gate has, it's just generic banding that 8bit has, not super powerful or anything." But then he claimed "it may just be eye experience or something? (lol)," so I don't know what to think of that xD. Either way I'm glad that it's not just something I wasn't able to see and it may be a problem on his end.

Should I still deband this "debanded banding" then? And/or is there any harm in doing the dither I did?

Also, these two examples aren't banded, right? It is an effect they used on purpose? Img1 (SWF) (http://yourimg.in/m/z9s209n.png), Img2 (NSFW) (http://yourimg.in/m/l48c8ov.png).


Double also: I hate to bother you guys, but I feel that starting a new thread will just be more of a bother, there isn't chroma-shift on the columns here (http://yourimg.in/m/t99m2tm.png), it's just shadowing/lighting, right? If it is chroma-shift then it is the only place where it exists in the video. (And thank you guys for your help so far :D )

[Bloax]

Yup, those are intentional effects. (They're blurry.)
"Debanded banding" is a lot more grainy, so as to eliminate banding more effectively. But nothing is perfect, as you see.
Also tell your friend he should learn the difference between banding, where something can be done. And debanded banding, where nothing more can really be done. :V
Same for the columns, except here it's just some slightly clumsily done parts.

[cretindesalpes]

Histogram (mode="luma")

[Ghitulescu]

I seem to having a lot of trouble noticing most banding in my encodes (which of course is very bad). For instance my friend said he could clearly see the difference between this (banded) (http://yourimg.in/m/p55355l.png) and this this (debanded) (http://yourimg.in/m/h7v4qcn.png), but I can't really see a difference or see the original banding.

Why don't you pay him a visit and ask him to show you the "obvious" banding....

[sneaker_ger]

Histogram (mode="luma")

banded (http://www.abload.de/img/banded_lumaggzin.png)
debanded (http://www.abload.de/img/debanded_lumafsaxi.png)

There really seem to be a few bands at the left, but I had to zoom in to actually see them on the non-histogram picture. Not sure if it actually makes sense to filter that before encoding.

[Bloax]

As I said, that's debanded banding.
It's very characteristic by it's uneven jumpiness, but it's way more subtle than actual banding.

"Nothing is perfect".