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 1st July 2015, 21:41   #31481  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,528
How would a benchmark differ from simply trying it? In your examples you don't need a benchmark tool (what would it do?), set the setting and see what the rendering time is. The complexity of the possible settings is the only issue and if you pick what "128 neuron doubling" means for all the other settings, source resolution, destination resolution, etc. it is easy to "benchmark" any GPU you own at "128 neuron doubling".

Like any GPU benchmark the results are highly dependent on the settings used and different users/sites use different settings so it is hard to compare results between users. Maybe a tool that played a stock video using a collection preset options with a particular player and at a specific resolution? It could report the average/min/max rendering times at each setting. This would be easy to do now, no special tool needed, but maybe review sites would include madVR performance if such a tool existed. However, it sounds like a lot of work, certainly more work than the benefit justifies before version 1.0 of madVR.

madVR is changing fast so it isn't time for standard benchmark tools yet.
__________________
madVR options explained
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2015, 21:57   #31482  |  Link
QBhd
QB the Slayer
 
QBhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 433
^^

Well put. Let's put this slightly off topic to bed.

QB
__________________
QBhd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2015, 22:04   #31483  |  Link
Arm3nian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
How would a benchmark differ from simply trying it? In your examples you don't need a benchmark tool (what would it do?), set the setting and see what the rendering time is. The complexity of the possible settings is the only issue and if you pick what "128 neuron doubling" means for all the other settings, source resolution, destination resolution, etc. it is easy to "benchmark" any GPU you own at "128 neuron doubling".
I can't test a gpu's performance in madVR if I don't have the gpu. It will help when buying a new card because I can see what scores others have gotten. Users can also post stock and overclocked results. I don't want it to be an e-peen tool, just something to view relative performance. Nothing like that currently exists. The best you can do is calculate how much faster a certain gpu is from another by using non madVR benchmarks, then apply that percentage to your current gpu's render clocks and get an estimated projection. Not very accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Maybe a tool that played a stock video using a collection preset options with a particular player and at a specific resolution? It could report the average/min/max rendering times at each setting. This would be easy to do now, no special tool needed, but maybe review sites would include madVR performance if such a tool existed.
Yes this is precisely what I envision. If madVR is included in benchmarks carried out by popular sites it will gain more publicity and attract more users, including enthusiasts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
However, it sounds like a lot of work, certainly more work than the benefit justifies before version 1.0 of madVR.

madVR is changing fast so it isn't time for standard benchmark tools yet.
I agree, there are lots of new things happening currently. When it is a bit more finalized then a benching tool can be of use.
Arm3nian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2015, 22:14   #31484  |  Link
e-t172
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
How would a benchmark differ from simply trying it?
Reading a number off a publicly available table (or better, a chart) is much easier than having to manually try dozens of combinations. The former takes seconds, the latter takes hours.
e-t172 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2015, 22:19   #31485  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by e-t172 View Post
Reading a number off a publicly available table (or better, a chart) is much easier than having to manually try dozens of combinations. The former takes seconds, the latter takes hours.
and what is the point if you never really judge the picture quality of the scaler yourself?
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2015, 22:43   #31486  |  Link
Arm3nian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
and what is the point if you never really judge the picture quality of the scaler yourself?
Nearly all of the settings, including needi3 and the newely implemented ones have a positive correlation between quality and GPU usage.
Arm3nian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2015, 23:05   #31487  |  Link
e-t172
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
and what is the point if you never really judge the picture quality of the scaler yourself?
  • Being able to know which ones you can cross out from the start because they won't be fast enough.
  • When you know what the scaler looks like, but you don't know how fast it will be because you're using a new GPU.
  • Sometimes we trust other people to be the experts on figuring out what scalers are the best or even worth considering. Not everybody has dozens of hours to spend trying lots of combinations of settings across a wide variety of samples. They just want something that is most likely to look best on typical content considering their hardware.

There are tons of reasons why having easily accessible performance data for various option combinations is a very good idea. I suspect it would also help madshi know what is worth optimizing.

Last edited by e-t172; 1st July 2015 at 23:09.
e-t172 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 02:17   #31488  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by e-t172 View Post
Reading a number off a publicly available table (or better, a chart) is much easier than having to manually try dozens of combinations. The former takes seconds, the latter takes hours.
I meant in the context of generating this theoretical chart. A benchmark tool does not create said chart, someone still has to run it on each card.

The desire behind this request is for someone to test madVR with a wide collection of video cards in a systematic way and post the results. A special tool isn't required for that and it wouldn't even make the process much easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
and what is the point if you never really judge the picture quality of the scaler yourself?
This is to use madVR like 3DMark, simply as a way to compare the performance of two video cards, not to pick settings.
__________________
madVR options explained
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 02:58   #31489  |  Link
Arm3nian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
The desire behind this request is for someone to test madVR with a wide collection of video cards in a systematic way and post the results. A special tool isn't required for that and it wouldn't even make the process much easier.
It's not practical to do it manually. It would take time to create all the profiles, run them one by one, record them, then write it in the spreadsheet. Plus you need the same source material. Countless of other factors can result in errors and is overall too much of a hassle. No one would participate. You need to automate the process with a script. Press one button and it runs the bench and uploads the results to the spreadsheet.
Arm3nian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 04:13   #31490  |  Link
James Freeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arm3nian View Post
You guys are missing the point. A benchmark would not be used to find optimal settings. It would be used to show what a certain gpu is capable of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
How would a benchmark differ from simply trying it?
madVR is changing fast so it isn't time for standard benchmark tools yet.
Arm3nian,

You can always create a "madVR GPU Benchmark Thread" in which you'll define certain parameters with a certain madVR version as a base.
People could post their results with the GPU's they own there, and not contaminate madVR official thread with such nonsense.

As I already said.
Just keep the rendering time under frame time.
1/"frame time" = maximum rendering time before dropped frames.

Cheers.
__________________
System: i7 3770K, GTX660, Win7 64bit, Panasonic ST60, Dell U2410.

Last edited by James Freeman; 2nd July 2015 at 04:27.
James Freeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 04:25   #31491  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 837
Benchmark? It's either realtime or the video is choppy Maybe the benchmark should be for how low your rendering time can go.
JarrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 04:55   #31492  |  Link
Arm3nian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
Arm3nian,

You can always create a "madVR GPU Benchmark Thread" in which you'll define certain parameters with a certain madVR version as a base.
People could post their results with the GPU's they own there, and not contaminate madVR official thread with such nonsense.
Read my previous on why this wouldn't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
As I already said.
Just keep the rendering time under frame time.
1/"frame time" = maximum rendering time before dropped frames.
Three pages and you still have no idea what we're talking about. If anyone should stop the nonsense, it's you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JarrettH View Post
Benchmark? It's either realtime or the video is choppy Maybe the benchmark should be for how low your rendering time can go.
Benchmark results show the most demanding setting you can run real time.
Arm3nian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 08:41   #31493  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,140
Might be an idea showing GPU usage on the OSD when GPU-Z is active.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 08:51   #31494  |  Link
Nevilne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Potplayer has GPU usage built-in fyi
Nevilne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 09:23   #31495  |  Link
wanezhiling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevilne View Post
Potplayer has GPU usage built-in fyi
Yes.
Not support Intel GPU though
wanezhiling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 11:11   #31496  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6233638 View Post
Now that we have a 10-bit output, I tried using CalMAN with madTPG to create a LUT for my display, and I'm running into a few issues:

1. When double-clicking to exit FSE mode, the screen just turns black rather than returning to windowed mode.
2. madTPG doesn't work very well if you have a single display setup.

It's very awkward to switch between CalMAN to set up the reads and then quickly switch over to madTPG and make it fullscreen on the same monitor.
Ideally what would happen is that madTPG would run hidden in the background and then enter an always-on-top state or FSE mode as soon as it is being told to display patterns.
And once that series of patterns is completed, return to being hidden in the background.

Ideally there would also be a way to pause for 5 seconds at the initial switch to FSE mode, but I assume that's something which would have to be fixed on CalMAN's side of things.
Hi there,

the latest Calman release now has some improvements when running Calman on the same PC as madTPG. The changes have been inspired by your "complaint"... So it would be awesome if you could try the new build and maybe provide feedback here:

http://www.spectracal.com/forum/view...hp?f=94&t=5729

Stacey Spears has actively asked for feedback about this. Would be great if you could tell him/us if it works better now, or if there's still something that could be improved.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 11:16   #31497  |  Link
XRyche
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Hi there,
Subtle and Polite LOL
__________________
Intel i5 3470, EVGA GTX 1050Ti SC ACX 2.0, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit, 16 GB 1600 mhz DDR3 RAM
XRyche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 11:35   #31498  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Had actually meant to send it as a PM. Ooops...
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 13:28   #31499  |  Link
ikarad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewer View Post


Source: H.264 8bit 4:2:0 http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...13#post1727413

a. SuperRes off
b. SuperRes on (passes: 2 strength: 0.75 softness: 0.10)
c. SuperRes on (passes: 2 strength: 1.00 softness: 0.00)

\ a b c
1) chroma upscaling: Catmull-RomAR
2) chroma upscaling: Bicubic75AR
3) chroma upscaling: SoftCubic50AR
4) chroma upscaling: Lanczos3AR
5) chroma upscaling: JincAR


\ a b c
1) chroma upscaling: Bilateral
2) chroma upscaling: super-xbr100AR
3) chroma upscaling: super-xbr150AR
4) chroma upscaling: Nedi
5) chroma upscaling: NNEDI32


\ a b c
1) chroma upscaling: Catmull-RomAR
2) chroma upscaling: JincAR
3) chroma upscaling: Bilateral
4) chroma upscaling: super-xbr150AR
5) chroma upscaling: NNEDI32


It seems like no need Chroma SuperRes.
What are the diffrences because i don't see anything?
ikarad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2015, 13:33   #31500  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikarad View Post
What are the diffrences because i don't see anything?
Haha. You need to look closer.. or chop the picture up and compare in an image viewer, this is why I asked for individual images, placing them together like that doesn't make comparing them very easy.

BTW feel free to edit quotes BTW, you didn't need to quote his entire post.
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 03:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.