Dogway's Filters Packs

[Reel.Deel]

Originally Posted by Boulder

Is there a clear method for defining the upscale method? I have some film sources which are clearly rather poor upscales and would like to downscale back to the original resolution for the encode.

Here's a nice article on descaling: https://guideencodemoe-mkdocs.readth...ing/descaling/

[tormento]

Originally Posted by Boulder

Is there a clear method for defining the upscale method?

The university professor of a friend of mine talked about it but that friend of mine lost the notes....

[Boulder]

Originally Posted by Reel.Deel

Here's a nice article on descaling: https://guideencodemoe-mkdocs.readth...ing/descaling/

Thanks

[anton_foy]

Originally Posted by Dogway

Finally ported. It acts more like a chroma deblocker so added into DeblockPack. I added a few optimizations and features so you might want to give it a look.

Thanks for this! But with CCD(30,HD=true) on UHD clip something strange is happening with the colors, like a tint of pink and grey. As if the green channel is gone or something.

EDIT:

src=last
CCD(10,HD=true)
CombinePlanes(src, last, src, planes="YUV")

This works wonders though on my noisy high ISO Slog2 footage!

[tormento]

Originally Posted by Julek

I am a little busy today, but I can give a very detailed explanation tomorrow.

Waiting

Perhaps it's better that you open a new thread about it.

[Dogway]

@anton_foy: Yes, I could test on grainy chroma and works great as well. As for your issue I haven't seen it... also tested on a 4K clip. I updated today the filter again to be able to turn off either chroma plane either U or V. Also removed the HD arg since it works fine for all resolutions whereas 4 and 12 step size was giving issues.

Also wanted to bring to the attention a new filter. Was unexpected but it occurred to me while reading around. Called FindTemp() will infer color temperature from the image, therefore it will only make sense for natural acquired images without grading of any kind. This tool is useful to know if you shot with a temperature of D50, D55 or other and then fix according with WhitePoint() as a step of the color correction process.

Tomorrow I will be uploading the last battery of script changes to resume the mvtools Zopti optimizations.

[Julek]

Originally Posted by tormento

Waiting

Perhaps it's better that you open a new thread about it.

Sorry for the delay, I made a video explaining how to setup vapousynth in windows with editor: https://youtu.be/DBL8nc2hp3U
Link for the mentioned guide: https://silentaperture.gitlab.io/mdb...roduction.html
And for specific questions, I prefer that you join our discord, where there are many VS users who can help: https://discord.gg/qxTxVJGtst

Originally Posted by Dogway

Finally ported. It acts more like a chroma deblocker so added into DeblockPack. I added a few optimizations and features so you might want to give it a look.

Cool, I'll try to implement the matrix size resizer as well.

[real.finder]

Julek, tormento, what about just use https://github.com/theChaosCoder/vap...TPACK/releases it got editor and stuff, Personally I use it to spy on vs things

[Julek]

Originally Posted by real.finder

Julek, tormento, what about just use https://github.com/theChaosCoder/vap...TPACK/releases it got editor and stuff, Personally I use it to spy on vs things

I prefer to avoid portable installation because I have had issues with some plugins.
And his editor doesn't have autocomplete for scripts, you can see how it looks in vs code at this minute: https://youtu.be/DBL8nc2hp3U?t=764

This is really important for things like QTGMC, which has a lot of parameters.

[real.finder]

Either way, I don't care, it's do the job for test (spy), I even use avs/avs+ as portable in my personal laptop, I just hate install things and I love things be portable and as aside note for vs, it's kinda bloated with python so I may never use it in my personal laptop

[Dogway]

Originally Posted by real.finder

Julek, tormento, what about just use https://github.com/theChaosCoder/vap...TPACK/releases it got editor and stuff, Personally I use it to spy on vs things

I think the latest Win7 supported version is the 3.8.x branch. I don't know about vs support though.

[tormento]

Originally Posted by Julek

Sorry for the delay, I made a video explaining how to setup vapousynth in windows with editor

Thanks, man. I just wanted to understand how to use the various versions of waifu2x

Originally Posted by Julek

I prefer that you join our discord

Just joined.

[LeXXuz]

Dogway I've used SMDegrain v3.1.2d quite a lot before. Now I'm trying out your version but get very different visual results.

Is there any kind of correlation for tr, thSAD etc to get kind of 'similar' results?

f.e. I've used these parameters with SMDegrain(+LSFmod):

PRE=(sneo_dfttest(Y=3, U=3, V=3, tbsize=1, slocation="0.0:0 0.5:2 0.9:8 1.0:16", chrslocation="0.0:0 0.5:0.5 0.9:2 1.0:4"))
SMDegrain(tr=3, thSAD=200, thSADC=50, contrasharp=100, refinemotion=true, truemotion=false, Str=1.0, pel=1, subpixel=2, prefilter=PRE, chroma=true, plane=4)

By just copying these I get a much more grainy output.

[Dogway]

I think you mean neo_dfttest()?

PRE=neo_dfttest(Y=3, U=3, V=3, tbsize=1, slocation="0.0:0 0.5:2 0.9:8 1.0:16", nlocation="0.0:0 0.5:0.5 0.9:2 1.0:4")
NotSMDegrain(tr=3, thSAD=200, thSADC=50, refinemotion=true, truemotion=false, Str=1.0, pel=1, subpixel=2, prefilter=PRE, chroma=true, plane=4)

That's the your call updated and without contrasharp.

I compared to:

PRE=neo_dfttest(Y=3, U=3, V=3, tbsize=1, slocation="0.0:0 0.5:2 0.9:8 1.0:16", nlocation="0.0:0 0.5:0.5 0.9:2 1.0:4")
SMDegrain(tr=3, thSAD=400, thSADC=50, refinemotion=true, truemotion=false, Str=5.0, pel=1, subpixel=2, prefilter=PRE, chroma=true, plane=4)

I see less smearing and better detail retention. SMDegrain has been partially optimized with Zopti for better qual/perf, and it's going to see better improvements on the following weeks.

With contrasharp=100 all your grain is back because the prefilter clip 'PRE' barely denoises and now 'contrasharp=n' (LSFplus) is doing a better recovery job. You can try with:

SMDegrain(tr=3, thSAD=300, thSADC=50, contrasharp=40, refinemotion=true, truemotion=false, Str=5.0, pel=1, subpixel=2, prefilter=2, chroma=true, plane=4)

Other internal prefilters also ok 0~7.

[LeXXuz]

Thanks for your reply Dogway. I think I should've added more detail about how I use SMD in the first place, sorry.

Originally Posted by Dogway

I think you mean neo_dfttest()?

PRE=neo_dfttest(Y=3, U=3, V=3, tbsize=1, slocation="0.0:0 0.5:2 0.9:8 1.0:16", nlocation="0.0:0 0.5:0.5 0.9:2 1.0:4")
NotSMDegrain(tr=3, thSAD=200, thSADC=50, refinemotion=true, truemotion=false, Str=1.0, pel=1, subpixel=2, prefilter=PRE, chroma=true, plane=4)

I've used real.finder's stuff so far. sneo_dfttst() is a helper function to use neo_dfttest() with different sigma strings for luma and chroma

Originally Posted by Dogway

That's the your call updated and without contrasharp.

I compared to:

PRE=neo_dfttest(Y=3, U=3, V=3, tbsize=1, slocation="0.0:0 0.5:2 0.9:8 1.0:16", nlocation="0.0:0 0.5:0.5 0.9:2 1.0:4")
SMDegrain(tr=3, thSAD=400, thSADC=50, refinemotion=true, truemotion=false, Str=5.0, pel=1, subpixel=2, prefilter=PRE, chroma=true, plane=4)

With contrasharp=100 all your grain is back because the prefilter clip 'PRE' barely denoises and now 'contrasharp=n' (LSFplus) is doing a better recovery job.

I already had the feeling that something was off with LSFmod in NotSMDegrain(). I had to use quite high values to even recognize some sharpening in the final output (and some increase in file size). You may remember I already mentioned this here.

I understand now that the value is much too high for your version of SMD as the sharpener seems to be working (again) as it should. So I have to find new values for my presets.

I made myself a few different presets over the past months for a wider variety of grain in sources. From sources with hardly visible grain to extremely grainy ones.
My example above was for a source with very little grain, hence the small values for dfttest and thSAD.

Originally Posted by Dogway

I see less smearing and better detail retention. SMDegrain has been partially optimized with Zopti for better qual/perf, and it's going to see better improvements on the following weeks.

That's one of the major problems I had with SMDegrain so far. On higher values with very grainy sources I decided to skip sharpening at all because some subtle textures like skin pores, fine suit textures and such became blurry/smeared as soon as there was movement involved and on the other hand looked very sharp when they stood still. This gave the picture a very unnatural look which, to my taste, was worse than the original grainy look.

I'm also very carefull with chroma denoising, that's why I prefer a ratio of 3:1 or even 4:1 between luma and chroma, depending on source.

[Dogway]

LSFplus is a top-to-bottom refactor of LSFmod (more over the contrasharpening block), and it makes much more sense. I didn't repurpose the filter, just made more sense out of it following some Didée's suggestions and greatly optimizing and improving the code at the same time.

The thing is LSFmod was mostly meant to be used for SD content. I had to add back 'old' (now named 'LSF') method and make it default for HD.

The sharpening method people prefers varies greatly, as it also depends on the source condition so you can even use a separate sharpener with some temporal limiting (ie. with soothe), etc. By the way you can also use temporal limited sharpening within SMDegrain, simply set 'limitS=false'.

As for the smearing, I made great efforts with that. First there is the internal luma_rebuild, I recommend the default Str=5.0 to separate dark elements better. Then I made LFR, to recover low frequency smearing.
As for the chroma, all my tests showed an ideal ratio (scaleCSAD) of 1:2 for good content, even for grainy HD. For SD it switches to 2:1. There are HUE lines that MAnalyse can pick up in chroma and are not clear in luma so it's important for vector structure.
There are some automations internally for defaults, so check defaults with show=true to have some ground to test from.

EDIT: To make it clear. Prefiltering is as important as MDegrain. Prefilter spatially as you would stand-alone, no need to be perfect but in the ballpark (falling short if any). Then let MDegrain do the dirty job.

[LeXXuz]

Thanks for that detailed explanation Dogway.

Guess I have quite a lot to play around with to find some new presets for me. In theory any movie/source is different and needs special adjustment on its own for optimum results. But this would clearly exceed the free time and motivation I have, so I'm trying to find some different presets as a compromise for most of my sources.

What about the temporal radius? I used tr=6 with values even up to 12 in old SMDegrain for some of the nastier stuff. I see the range is now 1-9 so I guess the scale is different? How high would/should you go with tr for little grain up to really nasty ones?

[Dogway]

IMO anything higher than 3-4 is a waste of time, it might indicate a problem with prefiltering.
I don't know what you work with but for live action there's little temporal correlation.

Try to play with the function definition sliders to get there faster, I only exposed the main ones to care about.

[LeXXuz]

It's mostly movies and TV-Shows on Blu-ray as source.

Yes I've seen there's a lot more switches and functions to play around with.

[tormento]

Originally Posted by Dogway

IMO anything higher than 3-4 is a waste of time, it might indicate a problem with prefiltering.

There are really bad movies outta there

Sometimes I had to use thsad=900 up to 1200

Then I learned about double pass denoising.

I always thought that increasing the frame span, besides denoising better, increases its precision. Am I wrong?