Optimal 4k settings for smoother image MadVR, enjoy!!

[maxkill]

Idling around 65 % max on RTX 2070 graphics card.

To all professionals, this guide does not show a full RGB range setting since my receiver don't support it and if you want this you need to configure it in the filter. It also does not pass through HDR picture.
This guide is for people who want a quick configuration to get optimal picture without these 2 things. I'm using 8bpc color depth 60hz LG oled screen.

What I found is that I love a sharp image, but also a smooth image. If I ramped up sharpness and crisp settings and so on the picture would get really sharp but look very grainy and this destroyed for me the experience. So I stumbled across a setting that provided optimal sharpness but with minimal grainyness and the picture is now incredible, the best I've seen.
So sharing this here now for those who want it.

If you have a 3dlut file go ahead and apply it. However, I have not calibrated my screen so I simply found a random 3dlut file in a guide which I'm using and it works great. So for those of you who are like me who do not have the time or energy to fix a perfect 3dlut file you can probably just go ahead and use the one provided like I did.

Here are the settings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hyQD9-7G8c

the 3dlut file
https://ufile.io/4wdo2

The Optimal smooth 4k MadVR settings.bin file
https://ufile.io/yb0ne

Comparison:
My The Optimal smooth 4k MadVR settings.bin https://imgur.com/2tdrt82

Asmodian max quality settings.bin https://imgur.com/aIQgHd4

Side by side smoother setting on the left side:
https://imgur.com/DME3t6w

LARGE PNG COMPARISON 4 screens from 2 scenes high quality
LEFT is smooth RIGHT is grainy(asmodian):
https://ibb.co/RQGNmvg

Full image 12mb download link:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=44711644599008792308

[Asmodian]

Optimal settings that do not use full range? :(

DO NOT USE RANDOM 3DLUTs! That is going to do more harm than good. The differences between screens are as significant as the corrections so a random 3DLUT results in a randomly modified image.

Why did you enable gamma processing?! You use High debanding by default?! Using Image Enhancements with LumaSharpen, AdaptiveSharpen, and sharpen edges by default on all content? Ouch!

Using NGU very high for chroma?! Use high at most. :p

Using more sharpen edges, crispen edges, enhance detail, LumaSharpen, and AdaptiveSharpen all at the same time in upscaling refinement too!?!

Sorry, but this looks more like a guide of what you should not do to me. Way too much processing for default settings.

[maxkill]

Optimal settings that do not use full range? :(

DO NOT USE RANDOM 3DLUTs! That is going to do more harm than good. The differences between screens are as significant as the corrections so a random 3DLUT results in a randomly modified image.

Why did you enable gamma processing?! You use High debanding by default?! Using Image Enhancements with LumaSharpen, AdaptiveSharpen, and sharpen edges by default on all content? Ouch!

Using NGU very high for chroma?! Use high at most. :p

Using more sharpen edges, crispen edges, enhance detail, LumaSharpen, and AdaptiveSharpen all at the same time in upscaling refinement too!?!

Sorry, but this looks more like a guide of what you should not do to me. Way too much processing for default settings.
Have you tried the settings? :)
Just try it you will see.

About the 3dlut not sure for others but for me it works beautifully. You definitely don't need to make your own 3dlut file, this file makes shadow so much better than not using a 3dlut.
( Although if you want optimal picture, sure go ahead and measure your screen and all that stuff.
About enabling gamma, this way you can use the gamma level of your choice to get the perfect darkness of the image. I use as can be seen 2.2 on almost all movies. If video is a little too bright, just bump it up. Videos can difffer.
About high debanding, definitely, since for 8bpc you get quite a bit of banding even with large UHD material. If you have a perfect RGB setting or whatever, like I mentioned, you can modify these settings to your liking. )

Lumasharpen and Adaptivesharpen makes the image MORE smooth. As you can see I already have the other setting 150% max. That wasn't enough, the other settings makes it so nice. There is something about mixing these that creates the effect.

Yes on ALL 4k content this is optimal. I've tried on both 70gb+ UHD and smaller files around 10gb UHD, you get same exceptional look no matter the 4k content.

About the upscaling, I don't think this section matters for 4k material or is upscale enabled for 4k material? If not you can just skip it. But if you set all settings exactly the same you too will get this wonderful effect so who cares.

Before I always was disturbed by some small grainyness in the image, not anymore AND it's still sharp. :cool:

Couple Screens:
Images appear a bit brighter in player than in browser.
https://imgur.com/lke7wmo
https://imgur.com/8qbhmY7
https://imgur.com/ziE1gHd
from silence of the lambs:
https://imgur.com/EQvoedK
https://imgur.com/x60mECs slightly fuzzy camera shot
https://imgur.com/l1zZ3Xm

hateful eight:
https://imgur.com/0r3u7t5
https://imgur.com/Y9LTbLQ

terminator2:
https://imgur.com/6CKMVVx
https://imgur.com/No5Lj9r
https://imgur.com/T6NubnS
https://imgur.com/YsmmKji

jurassic park:
https://imgur.com/Cc9ugx6

[Sparktank]

even if you disregard the jpg artifacts, you still see a lot of other artifacts. Sarah Conner's hair looks artificial.
the rest have so much blocking and banding.

if you sit 25 feet away, i guess it looks good.

This is where I appreciate strict rules from hydrogenaudio where people have to prove their "facts".
I don't see any proof here.
More something for youtube and reddit comments.

[StainlessS]

*forgot MadVR in title*

Then why dont you change it ?

Edit 1st post, click "Go Advanced", Title is above the text box (maybe give reason for editing "update").

[khanmein]

@maxkill Why don't you use @Asmodian "Max Quality settings.bin" setting which is more optimal than your setting.

[maxkill]

even if you disregard the jpg artifacts, you still see a lot of other artifacts. Sarah Conner's hair looks artificial.
the rest have so much blocking and banding.
if you sit 25 feet away, i guess it looks good.
This is where I appreciate strict rules from hydrogenaudio where people have to prove their "facts".
I don't see any proof here.
More something for youtube and reddit comments.
I sit 10feet away on 55inch oled and it looks incredible, much better than normal settings. The reason I already explained.
Unnatural? I can agree in some scenes skin and other things can look slightly unnatural BUT the smoothness of overall image far outweighs this. AND in most scenes I can not tell if it looks unnatural. I can get a sharper image as explained that will have less smoothing effect, but this will not make it look better. It might look more natural one one way, but also way grainier and unnatural in another way. If you like a grainy sharp image this is not the setting for you.

Think about it like this, if you go outside will you notice a grainy sky or shadows, or a grainyness in someones face? The answer is no, it will look smooth. So in my mind this actually makes it look more natural if anything even if some colors etc look slightly strange in some rare scenes. This makes it way more immersive if you think this makes sense.

Btw, I don't think the hair looks unnatural. Care to post a comparison to show what you mean? I think it looks quite sharp. Keep in mind the screens taken might not have been from scenes in perfect focus.

Then why dont you change it ?
Edit 1st post, click "Go Advanced", Title is above the text box (maybe give reason for editing "update").
Don't think it's possible to change title just text?

@maxkill Why don't you use @Asmodian "Max Quality settings.bin" setting which is more optimal than your setting.
I am open to trying it, but doubt it will remove the grainyness and keep sharpness balanced like this config does as you can see in the image.

[maxkill]

Ok I now tried it. I will also upload my bin file.
Mine looks better in my mind comparison side by side ;)

So I needed to prove it?
Judge for yourself
My settings more smooth picture https://imgur.com/2tdrt82

Asmodian max quality settings.bin more grainy https://imgur.com/aIQgHd4

Now you will get little bit more sharpness in the latter, but it will lose the smoothness.

Optimal 4k MadVR settings.bin
https://ufile.io/yb0ne
Remember there is a 1080p profile that runs above 90% on my system and have not fixed that one perfect yet so I'm only claiming to have the 4k settings fixed not the 1080p one. It will switch automatically to each depending upon resolution.

Another thing, I could not apply the 3dlut file to Asmodians settings bin for some reason, but works fine with mine.

[nevcairiel]

Claiming anything like this is "best" is clearly demonstrating an ignorance of the entire topic, since preferences in image detail are very subjective. Some people like smooth images with all detail lost, some people like sharp images with a bit of grain/noise.
You should rename your thread to say something like "madVR settings that I like". Claiming anything is "best" is just wrong, and also against the Doom9 forum rules, since its very misleading.

[maxkill]

Claiming anything like this is "best" is clearly demonstrating an ignorance of the entire topic, since preferences in image detail are very subjective. Some people like smooth images with all detail lost, some people like sharp images with a bit of grain/noise.
You should rename your thread to say something like "madVR settings that I like". Claiming anything is "best" is just wrong, and also against the Doom9 forum rules, since its very misleading.
I agree, might want to change the thread to

Optimal 4k settings found for smooth picture MadVR, enjoy!! I'm just so happy I can share, it is really is amazing the difference :D

[Sparktank]

"removing grainyness"...

You realize, with older movies, such as Terminator 2, it was filmed with grain.
It's the grain that gives it the details.

Without it... you're removing the only chance it has to have details.
You remove that, you get the horrible blocks and banding that I see in those JPG images.

My monitor is set at sRGB.
It's no a fancy $5K German/Japanese named monitor that needs a $500 calibration.
But nothing looks good in what you did.

Especially when you don't provide a source comparison in PNG (lossless without JPG artifacts).

So you try. :)

[maxkill]

"removing grainyness"...

You realize, with older movies, such as Terminator 2, it was filmed with grain.
It's the grain that gives it the details.

Without it... you're removing the only chance it has to have details.
You remove that, you get the horrible blocks and banding that I see in those JPG images.

My monitor is set at sRGB.
It's no a fancy $5K German/Japanese named monitor that needs a $500 calibration.
But nothing looks good in what you did.

Especially when you don't provide a source comparison in PNG (lossless without JPG artifacts).

So you try. :)
I hate that grainyness man, looks like hell to me. If you love it this is not the setting for you, as mentioned many times now.

My pictures not good enough? How can I fix the png picture if I really need to do that? I think you can see the comparison just fine.

[Sparktank]

Then don't write "optimal" and "enjoy". You have no idea what others like. :)

PNG is the least of your worries.
I do see the comparison, and know it's atrocious what you say.
You say with such arrogance and zero evidence.

I can bet you that most here don't respond because they're used to seeing this type of behavior.
I see nothing new nor revolutionary in what is already established.

And well countered in the first response.

So I'll respond the only way you know: With a smile. :)
You try our method of madness then look into a mirror, friend-o. :)

[maxkill]

Then don't write "optimal" and "enjoy". You have no idea what others like. :)

PNG is the least of your worries.
I do see the comparison, and know it's atrocious what you say.
You say with such arrogance and zero evidence.

I can bet you that most here don't respond because they're used to seeing this type of behavior.
I see nothing new nor revolutionary in what is already established.

And well countered in the first response.

So I'll respond the only way you know: With a smile. :)
You try our method of madness then look into a mirror, friend-o. :)
If I'm arrogant what are you? Seriously don't try to insinuate that I'm arrogant when sharing what I believe truthfully is a optimal setting. How rude can you get. I don't care about status at all I just want to share the optimal smooth settings. Can I do that without getting shit for it?
Would be nice, but I don't really care what you think. I provided the evidence if you like it go ahead and use it if you don't then don't come back to the thread, simple.

[Grimsdyke]

Don't feed the troll guys ...

[StainlessS]

Don't think it's possible to change title just text?
Of course you can, I change date in title on my threads every time I update.
Already told you how, you obviously did not even attempt it.
After 8 years you cannot change title (VBulletin forum software problem).

[maxkill]

Of course you can, I change date in title on my threads every time I update.
Already told you how, you obviously did not even attempt it.
After 8 years you cannot change title (VBulletin forum software problem).
Why are you claiming I did not attempt it? I did attempt it, you are lying. Yes still after 8 years I can not do it, what is your point?

As I said, I can edit the text but not the title.

[JNW]

Grain is inherent to film stock and is even sometimes added artificially to digitally shot film to make it more filmlike. If you like the DNR wax look that’s fine but as said you are scrubbing detail and frankly butchering the image as well as the directors vision/intent along with it. On top of that and also as been pointed out you can’t just go using anyone’s 3dlut you found random on the internet. Optimal for you and that’s fine but ones mans meat is another mans poison.

[StainlessS]

you are lying

You are an idiot, me is done with trying to help you.
Bye.

[maxkill]

Grain is inherent to film stock and is even sometimes added artificially to digitally shot film to make it more filmlike. If you like the DNR wax look that’s fine but as said you are scrubbing detail and frankly butchering the image as well as the directors vision/intent along with it. On top of that and also as been pointed out you can’t just go using anyone’s 3dlut you found random on the internet. Optimal for you and that’s fine but ones mans meat is another mans poison.
I never claimed it must be better for everyone to use that 3dlut file, I said it might be better like it was for me. For me it was a huge difference and I've always struggled getting good shading, this file solved that simply by downloading the file and using it in the madvr filter.

As previously stated, yes, if you love the grainy look this is not for you. This creates a smooth image with minimal grainyness while at the same time giving optimal sharpness with this effect.

[maxkill]

You are an idiot, me is done with trying to help you.
Bye.
Okay thanks for all the help, really appreciate it, bye.

edit: I figured out what you meant by 'advanced'. Didn't know I could get into that advanced edit after posting. But I did try it so that's why we collided heads when you said I didn't try it.

[Sparktank]

w, I don't think the hair looks unnatural. Care to post a comparison to show what you mean? I think it looks quite sharp. Keep in mind the screens taken might not have been from scenes in perfect focus.


No. Because it looks like shit the way you do it.
Just disable everything and post a PNG of that and you see how much it ruins such a video.

But, my understanding, goes that Cameron doesn't really care about his movies so they all suffer the same garbage DNR that you love.

Just use a spline upscaler on that and see it's the same image data.
Just try. :)

[maxkill]

No. Because it looks like shit the way you do it.
Just disable everything and post a PNG of that and you see how much it ruins such a video.

But, my understanding, goes that Cameron doesn't really care about his movies so they all suffer the same garbage DNR that you love.

Just use a spline upscaler on that and see it's the same image data.
Just try. :)
You are entitled to your oppinion, I've made my case. :)

[Sparktank]

You haven't made anything, even by double-blind standards.
The only people who like what you do is some cheap torrent community. Which feels like this is all you are doing it for.

[maxkill]

You haven't made anything, even by double-blind standards.
The only people who like what you do is some cheap torrent community. Which feels like this is all you are doing it for.
Not everyone care about being able to zoom in on colors 1000% and see if the pixels correlate to what is was 'meant' to look like. Most people probably just want a quick setting to make things look as good as possible with the least of effort and I would think most people don't like a grainy image even if something was 'meant' to look grainy.
At the same time I would think a lot of the grainyness in movies is not intended to be there, it's just there as a side effect.

[maxkill]

You haven't made anything, even by double-blind standards.
The only people who like what you do is some cheap torrent community. Which feels like this is all you are doing it for.
Uploaded better image now in png side by side 12 mb file.
Particularly look at the blue beam to the right behind the face, and the smooth vs grainy window and ceiling and tell me which looks more natural to you.
See last link in opening post.

[Warner306]

I don't know why you need bang on the head of maxkill for checking a bunch of video shaders and liking the result.

As already mentioned, using someone else's 3D LUT is a terrible idea. A 3D LUT is not designed to correct any display. It is designed to correct a specific model of display calibrated to a specific gamut. Even using a 3D LUT designed for the same display will result in many errors due to manufacturing variance.

[maxkill]

I don't know why you need bang on the head of maxkill for checking a bunch of video shaders and liking the result.

As already mentioned, using someone else's 3D LUT is a terrible idea. A 3D LUT is not designed to correct any display. It is designed to correct a specific model of display calibrated to a specific gamut. Even using a 3D LUT designed for the same display will result in many errors due to manufacturing variance.
Well, I'm not a 3dlut professional user for sure. All I can say is that file enhanced shadows for me like it was an amazing difference.
So might work for others, doesn't hurt to try if it makes it so much better, and no work with measuring and figuring out how to create that file either just download and point to it like in instructions VOILA.

[Warner306]

The problem is that you don't even know what you are correcting. The original display might have started at 6400K and was corrected to 6500K. If your display was 6600K to start with, you could end up at 6700K after adding the 3D LUT. Then the color would actually be far less accurate.

[Asmodian]

All I can say is that file enhanced shadows for me like it was an amazing difference.

Have you tried simply adjusting the output gamma to pure power 2.4 without using the 3DLUT? Changing or correcting the gamma is another thing I do in the 3DLUT, and that would be somewhat transferable in a way color correction is not. However madVR's gamma adjustment would be a better option because you would not get incorrect color corrections at the same time.

[iSeries]

If this is the 3dlut file I'm thinking of, it doesn't perform any colour correction, it just maps content to bt.709 and provides a bt.1886-like gamma curve by using a fake black level.

[huhn]

synthetic 3D lut are usable but BT 1886 make little to no sense the gamma will be all over the place if it is not matched with the display.

synthetic 3D lut for HDR mapping have clearly a place.

[iSeries]

I agree, and I myself use a 'real' 3dlut. Although, on these LG oleds, gamma is already all over the place, especially near-black. It is actually fairly effective. Also, a 'fake' 3dlut has the positive side-effect of completely eliminating the much-talked about 'chrominance overshoot' in 2018 oleds. However, this can also be achieved with a fake 3dlut that doesn't change gamma at all.

[Asmodian]

If this is the 3dlut file I'm thinking of, it doesn't perform any colour correction, it just maps content to bt.709 and provides a bt.1886-like gamma curve by using a fake black level.

OK, that is much better than a 3DLUT created for another screen that tries to correct the gamut or, even worse, the white point. I can see it being better than the simple gamma adjustments in madVR.

However, on my LG OLED, BT.1886 is the same as pure power 2.4 because everything I have measures black as 0 cd/m², so setting the display as calibrated to 2.2 and then adjusting it to 2.4 in madVR looks very similar to using a 3DLUT targeting BT.1886.

[Sparktank]

I don't have an OLED monitor. But if I were to buy/rent a calibrator for my monitor, would I yet to be able to achieve better results creating my own LUT's for future movie watching??

I bought my monitor on the premise of gaming and frame-rate interpolating to double the NTSC bluray standard: 23.976*x2.
My monitor can do 23.976*3.

It does have sRGB mode, which I use all the time.
And even the arbitrary modes given here don't improve anything.
I've used that before out of curiosity and hated it.

But should I actually buy a calibrating tool for my measly 24" LCD monitor designed for gaming and not video? It's a TN monitor.

[huhn]

do you care about accurate colors?
and if you care are you ready to pay 150+ bucks for a colorimeter and are you ready to spend "a lot" of time an learning calibration?

but without a question calibration will achieve more correct results.

BTW you can easily show 48 fps without judder on a 60 HZ screen using madVR.

[iSeries]

OK, that is much better than a 3DLUT created for another screen that tries to correct the gamut or, even worse, the white point. I can see it being better than the simple gamma adjustments in madVR.

However, on my LG OLED, BT.1886 is the same as pure power 2.4 because everything I have measures black as 0 cd/m², so setting the display as calibrated to 2.2 and then adjusting it to 2.4 in madVR looks very similar to using a 3DLUT targeting BT.1886.

Hi, this 3dlut was created with a fake black level of 0.001, so does actually give an 1886 curve

[Sparktank]

Well, seeing as I bought my monitor for Xbox One gaming and SVP interpolation, colors was last on my list.
But I *do* want colors to be accurate.
$150 is more like 200-300 Canadian for me.

I'm not that ready to set up profiles with madvr.

[huhn]

https://www.amazon.ca/X-Rite-EODIS3-i1Display-Pro/dp/B0055MBQOW

not sure why i used "bucks" while i'm clearly using euros in my head.

madVR can be used without profiles perfectly i myself don't use profiles.

[Sparktank]

Bookmarked. I won't have a TN forever. One day, I'll get a larger monitor that is OLED, or other. Hell, even IPS would do better.

[huhn]

TN have usually a better CR then IPS they are simply worse at viewing angles just like VA panels have viewing angle problem but a generally considered to be better TV panels.

i don't think a TN panel should be generally a bad panel.

[nevcairiel]

TN typically also have worse color accuracy, its not just viewing angles that are different.

[huhn]

yes there are far more difference but the colors are nothing you can't calibrate.

[maxkill]

Have you tried simply adjusting the output gamma to pure power 2.4 without using the 3DLUT? Changing or correcting the gamma is another thing I do in the 3DLUT, and that would be somewhat transferable in a way color correction is not. However madVR's gamma adjustment would be a better option because you would not get incorrect color corrections at the same time.
Yes I have tried without 3dlut ofcourse, it looks worse imo.

If this is the 3dlut file I'm thinking of, it doesn't perform any colour correction, it just maps content to bt.709 and provides a bt.1886-like gamma curve by using a fake black level.
It seems to give a slight 'warm' look of the content, not just changing the shadows. To me the 3dlut makes the image slightly green in color in the warm spectrum. I could be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.

So I fixed this slight color the 3dlut gave me by changing the lg oled TV setting to:

Technicolor Expert (User)

white balance
warm1

red -9
green -30
blue 7+

I also set black level to low which looks way less washed out for me, shadows got a great improvement from this setting alone.

Gamma is bt1886

Other settings I changed I use right now on the TV are:
Brightness 68
Contrast 58
Light 80

Before I did all this I also calibrated the screen fixing the gamma mostly.
But for the last contrast and brightness settings I simply used this
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php which works great and got the link from someone can't remember who.

One last thing, I also set my screen into deep color mode and changed the nvda settings to 23hz - 'User Nvda color settings' to RGB, 8bpc, Full. This seems to be the highest setting I can do at written moment.
Important, I also had to change the display mode and type in 2160p23 to stop judders / stutters from happening which I had before changing this.

I am now super pleased with the image. And for those of you who still doubt that this smoother image makes a difference here are 1 more comparison between on and off.

Smooth 4k image ON:
https://ibb.co/Tkg725w

Snooth 4k image OFF:
https://ibb.co/87drgPp

The proof of the 'looking through window effect' that removes pixelated areas without removing too much sharpness as you can see face still looks good although little bit less sharp.

The last comparison is of the frame of painting from images above zoomed in so you can really see what I'm talking about here if you still have hard time seing it.

Final Comparison ON to left OFF to right:
https://ibb.co/4dQHPTH

So from looking at the comparison I guess the noob wins after all, that is if you like a smooth looking out window effect :)

[Asmodian]

It is obvious that you like a very different look than I do. OFF looks significantly better to me, look at what happened to the skin texture! :(

Also, it is really important to use exactly the same frame when doing single frame comparisons. Accidentally comparing I v.s. P v.s. B frames can result in very wrong conclusions. :p


I also set black level to low which looks way less washed out for me, shadows got a great improvement from this setting alone.

This is not a optional setting, if you are using full range RGB high is correct, if you are using limited range RGB/YUV low is correct. Why TVs have to label this setting high and low, or other similarly random words, I don't know.

[ryrynz]

Why are all you guys in this thread? Abort! XD
I can imagine this without even trying it..
Gain is detail. Minimal processing is generally best. Everyone has their own tastes. /Thread.

[Charky]

I know I shouldn't shoot the ambulance (French proverb, sorry...) and bump this thread I randomly found looking for something else but...

These settings are so objectively bad they made me laugh alone in front of my PC monitor :p

Seems like you are clicking on random checkboxes and changing random settings in madvr and your TV without the slightest idea of how all of this work together.

And the end result is just absolutely awful. You can see it on every single screenshot but that last one of Michael Fassbender's face killed me, it's like you blurred every detail of his skin :eek:

You magically managed to un-4K the picture, and made it look like a 720p upscale, congratulations :D

Seriously, man, don't post guides if you have no idea what you are doing...