Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Hardware & Software > Software players

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 21st July 2015, 14:27   #32021  |  Link
Thunderbolt8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,197
which 3dlut files created by which program are currently supported by madvr? I need to create a 3dlut file in which I can modify the input range to modify the black levels and also to change the gamma value slightly
__________________
Laptop Lenovo Legion 5 17IMH05: i5-10300H, 16 GB Ram, NVIDIA GTX 1650 Ti (+ Intel UHD 630), Windows 10 x64, madVR (x64), MPC-HC (x64), LAV Filter (x64), XySubfilter (x64) (K-lite codec pack)

Last edited by Thunderbolt8; 21st July 2015 at 14:35.
Thunderbolt8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 14:54   #32022  |  Link
mbordas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by x7007 View Post
Anyone is able to run CUVID Acceleration from LAV Video Filter with MADVR and not freeze and crash ? None and Write-Back works fine, just the mixed with Madvr + CUVID .
seems to be a bug in the driver. It only happens on certain content. Use DXVA native or CB in LAVvideo, and uncheck the two DXVA options in madVR under "trade quality for performance".
mbordas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 15:14   #32023  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8 View Post
which 3dlut files created by which program are currently supported by madvr? I need to create a 3dlut file in which I can modify the input range to modify the black levels and also to change the gamma value slightly

you can use madVR to change the "input" range by changing the output range in madVR and use argyllCMS after it. I do it this way too. to better counter my crushed blacks and white clipping on my screen.

of cause you can change the gamma curve in argyllCMS too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Not right know because i am on holidays, but sure i will even if them are not neccesary for the answer to the question. I have curiouty about this since madvr 87.X
madVR should never show banding when EVR isn't showing it so this could be a serious bug.

if i remember correctly color noise is checked by default. and it just has lower luma noise for more chroma noise it shouldn't be more smooth.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 15:31   #32024  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Yeah, I wasn't meaning to say that AdaptiveSharpen should never be used. It could be useful to sharpen overly soft sources, or simply to add some "pop". However, "Upscaling Refinement" was always planned by me to post-process an upscaled image in such a way that it gets nearer to the ground truth. So, I would say that for this specific purpose I would not recommend AdaptiveSharpen.
I have to totally disagree.
It's the only sharpen algorithm that you can set & forget with a low strength, while still having a perceivable effect.
I wouldn't use more than strength 0.2 and probably only us it as an UR.
A SR strength of 4 is very unrealistic, it e.g. looks very bad with my cartoon example (very destructive ringing) and with a low strength, SR often hardly sharpens the image in a perceivable way.
AS 0.2 still looks very nice with the cartoon example when I use NNEDI3 64 to double and super-xbr 50 to quadruple.

For example, SR has a very minimal effect on scaling 720p -> WQHD filmed content, while AS really makes the image look more detailed without being destructive.

I already posted that fence example where AS looks really nice. I'm gonna post another example with extreme scaling to demonstrate that AS is very useful.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 16:50   #32025  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
What Didée said about Darbee: [...]
Yes, I remember seeing those spider images. And yes, he confirms it's some sort of unsharp mask stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
Does an image that small really fit the bill as far as being comparable to typical use cases?
Maybe not. But look at recent posts from Eyldebrandt. He showed screenshots of typical use cases where SuperRes introduced aliasing. He hasn't replied to any of my recent posts, though. So I'm not sure whether increasing the radius setting would help in his case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
I wonder if Shiandow could focus his attention on this particular area at all, a high radius SR utilized for edges only.. I dunno.
Maybe, I'm not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
on another topic. Anyone knows if random dithering in madvr 86 was with coloured noise?

With madvr new versions if i untick colour noise i can see banding in the skin of a person in a scene. With madvr 86, evr and wd player that banding is not there.
After a quick look at the source code of v0.86.11 it seems to be colored noise, but I'm not 100% sure right now. No time to analyze that. You could create a unicolored BMP with MS Paint and then take a screenshot of madVR and zoom it up and check if the dithering is colored or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8 View Post
which 3dlut files created by which program are currently supported by madvr?
http://madVR.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
I have to totally disagree.
It's the only sharpen algorithm that you can set & forget with a low strength, while still having a perceivable effect.
I wouldn't use more than strength 0.2 and probably only us it as an UR.
A SR strength of 4 is very unrealistic, it e.g. looks very bad with my cartoon example (very destructive ringing) and with a low strength, SR often hardly sharpens the image in a perceivable way.
AS 0.2 still looks very nice with the cartoon example when I use NNEDI3 64 to double and super-xbr 50 to quadruple.

For example, SR has a very minimal effect on scaling 720p -> WQHD filmed content, while AS really makes the image look more detailed without being destructive.

I already posted that fence example where AS looks really nice. I'm gonna post another example with extreme scaling to demonstrate that AS is very useful.
But now we're pretty much back in subjective mumbo-jumbo land. If you take a random image / video frame and upscale it and try to judge which algorithm looks "good" on it, it's all very subjective, matter of taste, and everybody will have different preferences. Which is exactly why I tried to analyze all the algorithms using a more objective scientific approach in this post. Did you carefully read it and study the image comparisons? Do you disagree with anything in that post?

Again, that post is discussing the best algos to turn a low image resolution picture into the most likely truthful high resolution picture. The purpose of "upscaling refinement" is not to pimp up soft sources, but simply to provide accurate scaling which gets as near to the "ground truth" as possible.

If you want to add some pop to your sources, or fix overly soft sources, then once again it's a matter of taste which algorithm might look good to you. AdaptiveSharpen might be great for that. But that's a different usage area than trying to find a scientifically ideal algo combination for upscaling.

The reason why your cartoon example has destructive ringing with SuperRes is that the cartoon image already has strong ringing in the source. The proper way to handle this is to dering the image before upscaling it (and to improve the SuperRes anti-ringing filter, which is not optimal yet). Algorithms for that to come in a future madVR version. E.g. look here for a work-in-progress:

Cartoon example:
super-xbr-100 -|- dering + super-xbr-100 -|- dering + super-xbr-100 + SuperRes

If we had a ground truth for this image, I bet it would be *much* nearer to the SuperRes processed result than to the unprocessed result. There are still artifacts in the processed image, though, I'll give you that. I think the artifacts are mostly coming from the SuperRes AR filter needing some improvements. So there's still work to be done.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 18:02   #32026  |  Link
nemoW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
It reproduces some more details, but it also adds a lot of aliasing.

<...>

I fear we may have to increase the radius to a value *higher* than 0.66 to get rid of aliasing problems. Sad but probably necessary...
Maybe it's time to add some kind of shader AA filter like FXAA/SMAA?
It would be especially helpful for sources like this: https://yadi.sk/i/hp2iZS68hC554

Last edited by nemoW; 21st July 2015 at 18:19. Reason: added aliasing sample
nemoW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 18:32   #32027  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
But now we're pretty much back in subjective mumbo-jumbo land. If you take a random image / video frame and upscale it and try to judge which algorithm looks "good" on it, it's all very subjective, matter of taste, and everybody will have different preferences. Which is exactly why I tried to analyze all the algorithms using a more objective scientific approach in this post. Did you carefully read it and study the image comparisons? Do you disagree with anything in that post?
Yes. But what do we want to find out?
I think you have a very good point with that naturalistic image which should look as close as possible to the source.
But I also think we need a more comprehensive impression.

Upscaling naturally softens an image, and we're not always upscaling an image with the factor you have used for your example.
So, will SuperRes still "add" enough sharpness if the scaling factor is much higher? madVR offers to run a sharpening pass after each doubling, but you said that SuperRes has less work to do with each pass.
This covers with my following observation:
SuperRes either adds very little sharpness at a reasonable strength or the image looks very odd with higher strength.
I don't think we should be "too scientific" since it's a highly subjective or at least non-objective issue. Maybe if you run a computational analysis which compares each pixel to match the source the most, some algorithms may perform very well, but maybe the result is still not desirable for many or even most users users due to subjective discomfort?
Ok, here comes the example:
Original (yes, there are some weird ghosting artifacts in the source):


NNEDI3 64 quadrupling + Jinc AR:


+ FS 0.8 UR:


LS default UR:


SuperRes 3 (else default):


AS 0.2 UR:


FS & LS are ring feasts. SuperRes adds some details from the source, which is remarkable, but it fails to really make the image look sharp. It's impossible in this case that the sharpness of SuperRes could be closer to the source than AS. So maybe SuperRes is nearer to the source apart from sharpness in this example, but I doubt many people would describe the result of it better than AS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
The reason why your cartoon example has destructive ringing with SuperRes is that the cartoon image already has strong ringing in the source. The proper way to handle this is to dering the image before upscaling it (and to improve the SuperRes anti-ringing filter, which is not optimal yet). Algorithms for that to come in a future madVR version. E.g. look here for a work-in-progress:

Cartoon example:
super-xbr-100 -|- dering + super-xbr-100 -|- dering + super-xbr-100 + SuperRes

If we had a ground truth for this image, I bet it would be *much* nearer to the SuperRes processed result than to the unprocessed result. There are still artifacts in the processed image, though, I'll give you that. I think the artifacts are mostly coming from the SuperRes AR filter needing some improvements. So there's still work to be done.
Here's the original frame (with Jinc AR for chroma):

I think it's not mean to say that super-xbr + SuperRes looks totally cruel regarding ringing in this example.
Even upscaling the original 720p source to WQHD with NNEDI3 64 doesn't look great with SuperRes with a strength of 1. The ringing in the face of the woman with the red dress gets much more visible than e.g. with AS 0.2.

Of course SuperRes and AS can be combined to achieve more sharpness (which I think is "realistic"). But that ringing really needs to be fixed and the radius of 0.66 is definitely too low to prevent aliasing. Haven't tested yet which value I'd prefer.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 19:03   #32028  |  Link
leeperry
Kid for Today
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
No, it only looks at one frame at a time. It pretty much does what Shiandow explained in that post you quoted earlier. But Shiandow's explanation was for the old SuperRes algo (where we still had number options for anti-aliasing and anti-ringing etc). The new algorithm is based on some newer scientific papers. It works like this:

0) Let e.g. super-xbr upscale the OI (original image). Result: UI (upscaled image).
1) Downscale the UI back to the same size as the OI (using: LQ=Bilinear; HQ=Bicubic).
2) Substract the OI from the downscaled UI, which gives us a sort of "error" image (EI) in the size of the OI.
3) Modify the UI in a clever way, by making use of the EI, to reduce the error.

Steps 1) to 3) is one SuperRes pass. If you want 2 SuperRes passes, you simply perform 1,2,3) twice.

All the magic happens in 3). And this code totally changed from the old to the new SuperRes algorithm. The other parts mostly remained unchanged. The old SuperRes code introduced aliasing and ringing, which is why Shiandow had added extra anti-aliasing and anti-ringing algos. The new SuperRes algorithm doesn't (or shouldn't) produce aliasing, anymore, and not as much ringing as the old code, so that's why there's no anti-ringing and anti-aliasing code in the new algorithm, anymore. I did add my own anti-ringing code in, though.
OK thanks for the detailed explanation, so it's a smarter dithering algorithm but I take it that using infos from the previous frames would be impossible to do in realtime and would require rocket science in order to guess what to keep and what to ignore. I've always been impressed by the effect of SR on 24p motion blur, really great looking

So the only difference between LQ/HQ is going from bilinear to bicubic, I guess that does put things back into perspective but I would still like to run more fair comparisons with weak LQ in .15 and weaker NNEDI3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
I've done all stuff in windowed mode. I've selected a ground truth image which in 100% view exactly fit in the media player in windowed mode, to make things easier for me. The ground truth is already a downscaled image from an even larger original image. So I could choose the exact size I wanted to have for the ground truth.

Please make sure you downscale using madVR with AR (anti-ringing). Don't downscale using an image/photo editor, unless it also has AR (I'm not aware of any that has).
How about dithering, can I leave monostatic ED2 engaged without tempering with the end results?

I would use another castle picture and a screenshot from a 4K mastered untouched BD.

I guess it would also make sense to use a noisy 1080p BD screenshot, because it would appear that SR likes to repair errors, some smart upscalers fail guessing and we are mostly using all this on low res noisy stuff to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MistahBonzai View Post
If working with MPC-HC these procedures will enable you to capture specific frames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braum View Post
It works that way, but you can also setup your own keybord shortcuts
OK thanks, sounds like a plan!

Last edited by leeperry; 21st July 2015 at 19:46.
leeperry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 20:35   #32029  |  Link
ikarad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 546
Why at 23.976 and 24Hz, in osd there is repeated frames line and at 30,50 or 60Hz, there is no repeated frames line?


24 Hz

60Hz
ikarad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 20:41   #32030  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
When there are obviously too many repeated frames or smooth motion is enabled, the information isn't shown (because it's of no use).
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 20:42   #32031  |  Link
Q-the-STORM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
I don't think we should be "too scientific" since it's a highly subjective or at least non-objective issue. Maybe if you run a computational analysis which compares each pixel to match the source the most, some algorithms may perform very well, but maybe the result is still not desirable for many or even most users users due to subjective discomfort?
Well that is *exactly* the reason madshi's comparisons were comparing against a "ground truth" image... with that we take away most of the subjectivity...
there is no "I like this image better because.." there is only "This image is closer to the ground truth"..
someone may want the image to be sharper but you can always sharpen... some want the image to be more colorful, you can always add saturation... that's stuff that can always be done to the users preference...
but the point here is a different one...
the point is not to make the image more appealing, the point is for madVR to upscale as accurate as possible to the ground truth...

there is no way to know if an upscale is accurate if we don't have a higher res image, that's why the ground truth image is so important....

if upscale1 is close to the ground truth, if upscale2 is close to the ground truth and upscale3 is close to the ground truth, then we can assume that images that don't have a ground truth image to compare to, are also accurately upscaled...

this is not about "fixing" an image to your viewing prefenrece... if it was shot slightly unsharp, we want madVR to upscale it to an unsharp image... you can always sharp the image afterwards if you want, but people that don't should be given the option not to...

and making the image more sharp because it *might* be more accurate without having a ground truth image to verify, is very subjective...
people will think the image is more accurate because they like it better...



Quote:
Originally Posted by ikarad View Post
Why at 23.976 and 24Hz, in osd there is repeated frames line and at 30,50 or 60Hz, there is no repeated frames line?
like aufkrawall said, there is no point in having it at 30 or 60Hz..... simply because 24 frames at 60Hz will have 36 repeated frames every second, so the counter would be over 1000 after 30 seconds... there is no value in having it in that case..

Last edited by Q-the-STORM; 21st July 2015 at 20:51.
Q-the-STORM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 20:59   #32032  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-the-STORM View Post
if it was shot slightly unsharp, we want madVR to upscale it to an unsharp image
The source posted by me is very small, but if I get close enough, I think the foreground is not unsharp at all and thus the upscaled image shouldn't be blurry either.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 21:00   #32033  |  Link
ikarad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-the-STORM View Post


like aufkrawall said, there is no point in having it at 30 or 60Hz..... simply because 24 frames at 60Hz will have 36 repeated frames every second, so the counter would be over 1000 after 30 seconds... there is no value in having it in that case..
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
When there are obviously too many repeated frames or smooth motion is enabled, the information isn't shown (because it's of no use).
Thanks but I don't understand why this line is not visible at 120hz. 120hz is a multiple of 24.

Last edited by ikarad; 21st July 2015 at 21:04.
ikarad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 21:40   #32034  |  Link
Q-the-STORM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
The source posted by me is very small, but if I get close enough, I think the foreground is not unsharp at all and thus the upscaled image shouldn't be blurry either.
I didn't mean your picture specifically, I meant any picture in general...
e.g. if a filmmaker wanted it to be slightly unsharp...

of course in some cases of very downscaled images you will never get an accurate upscale, simply because too much information was lost... but videos at e.g. 480x270 are pretty rare... usually we are talking about at least DVD resolutions, which should have enough information...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikarad View Post
Thanks but I don't understand why this line is not visible at 120hz. 120hz is a multiple of 24.
same applies at 120Hz...

24 frames at 120Hz will have 96 repeated frames every second, so the counter would be almost 1000 after 10 seconds...

Last edited by Q-the-STORM; 21st July 2015 at 21:44.
Q-the-STORM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 22:16   #32035  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
the repeat line is only there for rendered frames that needs to be repeated for what ever reason. this is not about presentation.

as long as this is not needed you will not see this line.

the refresh rate has nothing to do with this.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 23:04   #32036  |  Link
6233638
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
Thank you for the in-depth sharpness comparisons everyone.
I had a look over everything posted over the last day or two, and did some testing of my own.

My concern is that most of the test images that people are using as a reference are already over-sharpened, containing pre-existing ringing artifacts and aliasing.
So in order to match the source image, you end up using overly sharp post-processing, which seems to be introducing a lot of artifacts around high-contrast edges.

I would focus more on good Blu-ray sourced images downscaled 50% and trying to match the original sharpness, than using photographs or content from what appears to be low-quality or re-compressed sources, if the goal is restoration rather than enhancement.
I do also wonder if people are checking the results on small PC monitors, or their tv/projection setups.
In what testing I have been able to do, SuperRes seems to be introducing aliaising and particularly ugly high-frequency ringing at all strengths.
Even with a strength of 1 and radius of 1.00 it's still adding aliasing - whether that is real-world images, or test patterns.
Of course if you're combining that with a scaler that already suffers from aliasing (basically anything other than Jinc or image doubling) perhaps the additional aliasing is not that noticeable?

I finally got around to trying out Super-XBR too, which seems to add a lot of low-frequency ringing with sharpness set above 25 - which you may not notice if you're looking at a poor quality source that already has ringing artifacts, rather than a good Blu-ray disc.
Combining Super-XBR with sharpening to achieve similar results to 16-neuron NNEDI3 ended up with higher render times and worse image quality than just using NNEDI3.

Here's one of the images that I was testing with which seemed to show aliasing quite well:I'm not really happy with how that looks using any of the sharpening options, or scaling other than NNEDI3.
But perhaps I haven't spent enough time with the new options, I really haven't been able to do much testing with anything that's been introduced in the last couple of months at all.
6233638 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 23:24   #32037  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemoW View Post
Maybe it's time to add some kind of shader AA filter like FXAA/SMAA?
I think FXAA/SMAA works by knowing the vector graphics details (a line goes from one point to another). madVR does not have that kind of information for video. Game rendering and video rendering are *TOTALLY* different. Game rendering is vector graphics. Video rendering is bitmap graphics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Upscaling naturally softens an image, and we're not always upscaling an image with the factor you have used for your example.
So, will SuperRes still "add" enough sharpness if the scaling factor is much higher? madVR offers to run a sharpening pass after each doubling, but you said that SuperRes has less work to do with each pass.
I've tried quadrupling an image, and it makes no big difference to image sharpness whether I run SuperRes after doubling and quadrupling, or only after quadrupling. Based on that I'd say that SuperRes should work ok, regardless of the upscaling factor. At least in theory. It might make sense to double check that. But please let's do that with a ground truth image to compare to, because otherwise it's all nothing but subjective again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Ok, here comes the example:
Original (yes, there are some weird ghosting artifacts in the source):

[...]

FS & LS are ring feasts. SuperRes adds some details from the source, which is remarkable, but it fails to really make the image look sharp. It's impossible in this case that the sharpness of SuperRes could be closer to the source than AS. So maybe SuperRes is nearer to the source apart from sharpness in this example, but I doubt many people would describe the result of it better than AS.
Where's the ground truth for this image? Do you *want* our discussion to not be objective? The problem with not having a ground truth is that we can discuss for hours how the upscaled image should look like without ever coming to an agreement. Maybe your very tiny original image was downscaled with a very soft algorithm? In that case the downscaling algorithm was at fault for the very soft result produced by SuperRes. But without having a ground truth, I can't even double check if the downscale was produced with a reasonably good downscaling algorithm or not. I can't check anything, because I've nothing to compare to.

I think you're missing the whole point of my "research": I've no problem if you want to sharpen your video. No problem at all. But artificially sharpening video is not something that should ever be enabled by default in madVR. On the other hand, faithfully upscaling sources, by producing images which are as near to the ground truth as possible, that is something that would make a great default setting in madVR.

Obviously faithful upscaling is useless if it's full of artifacts. So maybe there needs to be more work done on fixing the ringing and aliasing artifacts SuperRes might still produce. But do you understand my motivation here? I'm not trying to tell users what to do. I'm trying to find good default settings for madVR to produce the most accurate image quality. Some users might prefer it sharper, so they can add sharpening on top like e.g. AdaptiveSharpen. Fine with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Here's the original frame (with Jinc AR for chroma):
http://abload.de/image.php?img=adorigymo4j.png

I think it's not mean to say that super-xbr + SuperRes looks totally cruel regarding ringing in this example.
But please have a look at all the lines in these images. Take a step back from your monitor and compare the SuperRes image with the original frame, and with the AdaptiveSharpen image. Here's an extract using super-xbr for upscaling:



You should clearly see that all the lines in the original frame are noticeably thinner than in the AdaptiveSharpen (and unprocessed) image. And you should also see that SuperRes manages to thin most of the lines back to what they should be. YES, there are artifacts. But if you try to ignore them for a second, don't you see that SuperRes brings the upscaled image much nearer to the original image? In contrast to that, AdaptiveSharpen puts more weight on the fat bloated up lines, to make them even more different from the original source. So AdaptiveSharpen moves the image away from what the upscaled image should ideally look like. To you it might look pleasing. To my eyes it looks bad.

I think your whole approach is "wrong". You're trying to find algorithms which produce results which you personally find pleasing. The problem with that is that what is pleasing to you might be totally ugly to the next guy. Instead I'm trying to find algorithms which produce accurate results that are faithful to the original source. If there are artifacts, I have to fix them. But it's still the right approach. If the final results of my tweaks are too soft for your taste, you can always touch them up by adding some sharpen on top. At least you would then sharpen the thin lines instead of the bloated lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
OK thanks for the detailed explanation, so it's a smarter dithering algorithm
No, it's got nothing to do with dithering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
I take it that using infos from the previous frames would be impossible to do in realtime and would require rocket science in order to guess what to keep and what to ignore.
I've never tried that, I've no idea if that would work and how difficult it would be. It's a *totally* different kind of algorithm than the one developed by Shiandow. Please try not to be confused that there are 2 totally different approaches which share the same "SuperRes" name.

FWIW, some time ago there was a thread in the AviSynth section about the other SuperRes algorithm you're talking about. The AviSynth experts seemed to agree that this kind of stuff (looking at multiple consecutive frames) would only work with heavily aliased sources. But our usual DVD and Blu-Ray sources are typically soft, and not aliased. So for those the multi-frame-SuperRes would probably not work at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
How about dithering, can I leave monostatic ED2 engaged without tempering with the end results?
Dithering is totally separate, you can use whatever you want. The difference between different dithering methods is extremely small compared to differences between upscaling and sharpening algorithms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
I guess it would also make sense to use a noisy 1080p BD screenshot, because it would appear that SR likes to repair errors, some smart upscalers fail guessing and we are mostly using all this on low res noisy stuff to begin with.
Yes, might be an interesting test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-the-STORM View Post
Well that is *exactly* the reason madshi's comparisons were comparing against a "ground truth" image... with that we take away most of the subjectivity...
there is no "I like this image better because.." there is only "This image is closer to the ground truth"..
someone may want the image to be sharper but you can always sharpen... some want the image to be more colorful, you can always add saturation... that's stuff that can always be done to the users preference...
but the point here is a different one...
the point is not to make the image more appealing, the point is for madVR to upscale as accurate as possible to the ground truth...

there is no way to know if an upscale is accurate if we don't have a higher res image, that's why the ground truth image is so important....

if upscale1 is close to the ground truth, if upscale2 is close to the ground truth and upscale3 is close to the ground truth, then we can assume that images that don't have a ground truth image to compare to, are also accurately upscaled...

this is not about "fixing" an image to your viewing prefenrece... if it was shot slightly unsharp, we want madVR to upscale it to an unsharp image... you can always sharp the image afterwards if you want, but people that don't should be given the option not to...

and making the image more sharp because it *might* be more accurate without having a ground truth image to verify, is very subjective...
people will think the image is more accurate because they like it better...
Yep, exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6233638 View Post
Thank you for the in-depth sharpness comparisons everyone.
I had a look over everything posted over the last day or two, and did some testing of my own.

My concern is that most of the test images that people are using as a reference are already over-sharpened, containing pre-existing ringing artifacts and aliasing.
So in order to match the source image, you end up using overly sharp post-processing, which seems to be introducing a lot of artifacts around high-contrast edges.

I would focus more on good Blu-ray sourced images downscaled 50% and trying to match the original sharpness, than using photographs or content from what appears to be low-quality or re-compressed sources, if the goal is restoration rather than enhancement.
I do also wonder if people are checking the results on small PC monitors, or their tv/projection setups.
In what testing I have been able to do, SuperRes seems to be introducing aliaising and particularly ugly high-frequency ringing at all strengths.
Even with a strength of 1 and radius of 1.00 it's still adding aliasing - whether that is real-world images, or test patterns.
Of course if you're combining that with a scaler that already suffers from aliasing (basically anything other than Jinc or image doubling) perhaps the additional aliasing is not that noticeable?

I finally got around to trying out Super-XBR too, which seems to add a lot of low-frequency ringing with sharpness set above 25 - which you may not notice if you're looking at a poor quality source that already has ringing artifacts, rather than a good Blu-ray disc.
Combining Super-XBR with sharpening to achieve similar results to 16-neuron NNEDI3 ended up with higher render times and worse image quality than just using NNEDI3.

Here's one of the images that I was testing with which seemed to show aliasing quite well:I'm not really happy with how that looks using any of the sharpening options, or scaling other than NNEDI3.
But perhaps I haven't spent enough time with the new options, I really haven't been able to do much testing with anything that's been introduced in the last couple of months at all.
Thanks, the Mononoke image will be useful. Do you have some samples showing aliasing with filmed content, too? And some samples where that ugly high-frequency detail is especially evident? Unfortunately all the users who complain about aliasing either post no samples at all, or just one image. Would really be useful to have a wider set of samples to work with. PNG images should suffice. (And please always include the original 1080p image, as you've done with Mononoke). Thanks!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2015, 23:55   #32038  |  Link
har3inger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 139
Just FYI, SMAA and FXAA are post-processing shaders that work on the frame buffer by finding edges in the image and smart blending them. Unlike MSAA, you don't need any info regarding the object geometry, and could probably use FXAA or SMAA as photoshop plugins if you wanted to. IMO, they're sort of specific for hard-edge staircase aliasing you get from rasterization and don't really have a place in film anti-aliasing. However, super-xbr was designed for emulators at first, and at least I didn't think it would work at all for film content until I tried it and was amazed by it. Maybe these post-processing filters could be the same.

Keep in mind that because SMAA and FXAA have no access to geometry data, they do jack all for temporal aliasing or crawling edges, which thankfully aren't really that common in filmed content.
har3inger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 00:34   #32039  |  Link
Anime Viewer
Troubleshooter
 
Anime Viewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemoW View Post
Maybe it's time to add some kind of shader AA filter like FXAA/SMAA?
It would be especially helpful for sources like this: https://yadi.sk/i/hp2iZS68hC554
Quote:
Originally Posted by har3inger View Post
Just FYI, SMAA and FXAA are post-processing shaders that work on the frame buffer by finding edges in the image and smart blending them. Unlike MSAA, you don't need any info regarding the object geometry, and could probably use FXAA or SMAA as photoshop plugins if you wanted to. IMO, they're sort of specific for hard-edge staircase aliasing you get from rasterization and don't really have a place in film anti-aliasing. However, super-xbr was designed for emulators at first, and at least I didn't think it would work at all for film content until I tried it and was amazed by it. Maybe these post-processing filters could be the same.

Keep in mind that because SMAA and FXAA have no access to geometry data, they do jack all for temporal aliasing or crawling edges, which thankfully aren't really that common in filmed content.
If you have an Nvidia GPU you can force FXAA and other similar antialasing on in Nvidia control panel in the program settings area. You apply it to mpc-hc (or whatever video player you are using with madVR). As the description in Nvidia Control Panel will tell you "FXAA is a fast shader-based post-processing technique that can be applied to any program, including those which do not support other forms of hardware-based antialiasing. FXAA can be used in conjunction with other antialiasing settings to improve overall image quality. Note that enabling this setting globally may affect all programs rendered on the GPU, including video players and the Windows desktop." Since it applies to whatever video player you assign to it in Nvidia by changing it from Use global setting (Off) to "On" madshi shouldn't need to do anything to madVR. You may not see any significant visual difference between having it off or on, and it could actually produce dithering or artifacts. As it says under usage scenarios:
"Turn FXAA off it you notice artifacts or dithering around the edges of objects, particularly around text". "Turn FXAA on to improve image quality with a lesser performance impact than other antialiasing settings"
__________________
System specs: Sager NP9150 SE with i7-3630QM 2.40GHz, 16 GB RAM, 64-bit Windows 10 Pro, NVidia GTX 680M/Intel 4000 HD optimus dual GPU system. Video viewed on LG notebook screen and LG 3D passive TV.
Anime Viewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2015, 01:49   #32040  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Thanks, the Mononoke image will be useful.
Compared to MPDN the results from SuperRes are quite different. madVR's version is better with line thickness but also adds a boat tonne of aliasing in comparison.
It certainly looks like you're on the right sort of path though with SuperRes, whatever you changed there seems to bring it much closer to the original, just gotta deal with those unwanted artifacts.

Last edited by ryrynz; 22nd July 2015 at 02:14.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.