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. |
8th February 2014, 12:05 | #22761 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
|
|
8th February 2014, 15:15 | #22763 | Link | ||||||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
------- For anybody interested in which Error Diffusion algorithm madVR should use, here are a couple of test builds: http://madshi.net/madVRedtest.rar There are 8 different builds included, based on ideas and suggestions from different users. I've intentionally *not* named them properly, so you can do a real blind test. Let me know which build number(s) you prefer. And ideally, try them in real time first, without using contrast/brightness boosting. This is for your own good, because that's what counts most. Feel free to double check afterwards with screenshots and contrast/brightness boosts. Will be interesting to hear the results. I am considering offering two different error diffusion variants: One with very low noise but with worm artifacts. And one without worm artifacts but slightly higher noise. So feel free to nominate either one or two builds. If you nominate two builds, one should be low-noise with worm artifacts, and one should be slightly higher noise without worm artifacts. All 8 test builds operate on 16x16 pixel blocks, using serpentine scanning. The algorithms used are the following, but in a different order than listed here: (1) original test build 3 - madshi weights, no randomness (2) same as (1), but with improved edge error spreading (3) same as (2), plus adding noise before rounding (4) original test build 5 - random weights (5) Floyd-Steinberg, no randomness (6) same as (5), plus adding noise before rounding (7) Filter Lite with 0.97 weight sum, no randomness (8) same as (7), plus adding noise before rounding I'm really excited about hearing your preferences! I know that I have 2 clear favorites. |
||||||||
8th February 2014, 15:35 | #22764 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,926
|
Quote:
madvr ivtc detracts it as 4:2:2:2:2 so 12i to 5p so 25 fps looks like 25 fps changed to 30 and with a playback info of 23 hz madvr normally can't handle 4:2:2:2, but how to handle 4:2:2:2:2 ... |
|
8th February 2014, 16:15 | #22767 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 753
|
Sorry for being unclear, I was still testing how exactly to combine the two. The image I posted was generated by using the following weights 2/3 of the time:
((0,1/16), (0,3/16), (0,5/16), (7/16,0)) And the following weights the other 1/3 of the time: ((0,0), (0,0.0090), (0,0.4861), (0.7770,-0.3098)) For technical reasons these array are transposed, the rows correspond to the x direction and the columns correspond to the y direction. I also alternated scanning the image left to right and right to left. Since then I've been testing it in various situations with various different levels of 'mixing'. And I think that this method might be superior even to just using one of both set of weights. It combines the good parts of Flloyd-Steinberg with the good parts of the weights from Build 3, and it adds at least some randomness which can avoid some unwanted patterns. In the following image I use this method, where I used Build 3 weights 1/5 of the time, on the top part and I use the weights from Build 3 on the lower part: comparison The combined method seems to avoid some of the obvious horizontal bands. IMHO this makes the combined method seem smoother, while adding a minimal amount of noise. |
8th February 2014, 16:43 | #22768 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 54
|
Hi, for some files there are 2 audio stream
Quote:
|
|
8th February 2014, 16:54 | #22769 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 128
|
After som Quick and dirty enhanced black clipping patterns test(will do a longer test some time later).
Best to worst in the "noisy" artifact free ED category: 1st place(best). Shared by build 7 and build 5. 2nd place. Build 3. 3rd place(worst). Build 1. Ugly dots! Best to worst in the lower noise and worms are acceptable ED category: 1st place(best). Build 6. 2nd place. Shared by Build 8 and Build 4. 3rd place(worst). Build 2. Ugly dots! //edit Build 5 gives me slightly lower rendering times then build 7 and looks identical too. For now i think build 5 is the best choice. Last edited by bacondither; 8th February 2014 at 17:18. |
8th February 2014, 17:19 | #22770 | Link |
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
I didn't read other posts but I think my favorites are 2 and 7, 2 giving the best depth impression as it would appear and 7 looking much less noisy and even better thanks to the lower subjective noise floor but phew...I'll do that again tomorrow morning with fresh eyes if you don't mind.
How about providing those 8 different options so OCD'ed end-users could have a ball and pick whichever one they like best depending on their taste and equipment? It seems only logical that ppl with 6bit TN might not have the same needs as those on real 10bit displays. |
8th February 2014, 17:29 | #22772 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 80
|
Quote:
|
|
8th February 2014, 17:35 | #22773 | Link |
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
And anyway, you'll provide a user manual with mVR 1.0 so I don't see how it could be such a big deal to have 8 different ED algorithms if who does what is properly documented IMHO....especially if the ED algorithm is an optional sub-option only meant for power-users(read utterly OCD'ed videophiles ^^).
Better have too many options than not enough, you'll need to explain about Jinc & NNEDI so it can't get much worse and I believe mVR is meant to be the ultimate VR. Many audio apps come with different dithering algorithms that you can pick and finetune depending on your needs: iZotope MBIT+ Dither Last edited by leeperry; 8th February 2014 at 17:37. |
8th February 2014, 17:37 | #22774 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12
|
Just going by the looks here watching 422 prores hq trailer on 6bit+AFRC e-ips 23" monitor from 1m away
I liked 1, 4, 8 1 seemed to be most ordinary, nothing bad or good 4 showed the most detail and temporal resolution (but could spot noise on source more easily as well) 8 gave me the pop effect (but sometimes it seemed less detailed than 4 or 1) It might not be balanced since I could point out the difference, so I'd say a compromise between 4 and 8 would be the best for me. Then again I could be very wrong mind tricks me when watching same trailer 8times |
8th February 2014, 18:32 | #22775 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
|
Quote:
1, 3, 5 all show noise on black for me, with 1 & 5 being very noisy. 5 has a tendency to show patterns in the noise. 6 & 7 seem to be very noisy (though not on black) and produce a much darker image near black than the other algorithms. (I've triple-checked this, and get the same results each time) 2 seems to be the best choice for low noise, and avoiding obvious patterns. 2 & 4 produce similarly low-noise images, but 4 seems more prone to introducing obvious patterns. 8 seems to be a bit noisier than 2 or 4. So #2 seems to be a clear winner for me, at least from the testing I've done so far. |
|
8th February 2014, 19:12 | #22776 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
8th February 2014, 19:14 | #22777 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 919
|
I can't tell the difference between all of them with my own eyes.
They all look much smoother than the random dither colorful noise, which is very visible. Funny how the answers from users are all over the place... it may very well be negligible. Quote:
Did you even bother to take the visual test or you simply don't care?
__________________
System: i7 3770K, GTX660, Win7 64bit, Panasonic ST60, Dell U2410. |
|
8th February 2014, 19:15 | #22778 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
8th February 2014, 19:33 | #22780 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 51
|
As promised earlier, I'm trying to make some more test patterns
Everything is encoded in 16bit yuv ffv1, i.e. lossless. r, g, b and white light sources in each corner and a black in the center. stepping up intensity of the corner sources with each frame 1440p 1080p black-green only gradient: 1440p 1080p flat tiles with steps of grey smaller than the 8bit quantum (12bit quantum): 1440p 1080p Best viewed with smooth motion off. Last edited by The 8472; 8th February 2014 at 22:59. |
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
|
|