[madshi]

Originally Posted by Selur

Nice!

Originally Posted by Neo-XP

Maybe the chroma doubling drop-down list should also lists algorithms with their names, preceded by the quality.

For instance, if I choose "high" for luma doubling, I would have this for chroma doubling :

- let madVR decide
- low (Bicubic60 AR)
- normal (Jinc AR)
- high (NGU AA low)
- high (NGU Standard low)
- high (NGU Sharp low)
- very high (NGU AA medium)
- very high (NGU Standard medium)
- very high (NGU Sharp medium)

or any other combinations of algorithms that you find adequate to use...
At the moment, new users do not even know which algorithm is used for chroma doubling without displaying the stats.

What's the point of adding "low", "medium" and "high", if I list multiple different options for each? The whole point of the way the dropdown box works right now is to protect users from making crazy decisions, which the history of this thread shows is a real problem. I may switch to using medium instead of low quality for chroma doubling, though.

Originally Posted by Neo-XP

For fun, I tested Bicubic60 AR against Jinc AR : http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/206712
It is not difficult to see the red gradient lines/blocks with Bicubic60 AR, while Jinc AR is smoother and has the highest quality.

If you're honest, IMHO you would probably have to admit that the difference is incredibly small, and this at something like 5000% zoom, and with a test image which should be ideal at showing the difference. Don't you agree? With 99.99% other images, you wouldn't see any difference at all even at 500000% zoom. Would you really want to spend precious GPU resources on using Jinc AR for such a tiny quality difference at 5000% zoom?

Originally Posted by cork_OS

1) I like NGU Standard very much. It provides pretty natural look, quite sharp in the same time and without excessive line thinning. [EDIT: Agreed that NGU Soft looks unnecessary.] The only benefit of NGU Soft over NGU AA is removing of dark halo in some cases.

2) Should notice that "low quality content" includes content with very different quality flaws. For example, low quality sources may contain staircase noise, which is less amplified by NGU AA. In other hand, NGU Standard is immune to dark halos. However, in general NGU AA looks more suitable at least for very low-quality content, it brings uniform and natural-looking picture.

3,4) No sir!

Ok, thanks for the feedback!

Originally Posted by Ver Greeneyes

I watch so little high quality content that I feel weird answering this - but on the parts of low quality content that don't look compressed I like the crispness of NGU Sharp.

K, thx.

Originally Posted by leeperry

It's really too bad you removed SR AB especially when NGU bloats quite a lot in combination with SR, I currently exclusively use SSIM downscaling(1D for HD, 2D for SD as I got GPU cycles to spare) and use SSIM's AB with great results

NGU doesn't bloat. SuperRes reintroduces some bloating, but that's not NGU's fault. Too be honest I'm not too worried about it, because I think you're probably the only person on the planet who combines NGU with SuperRes.