madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[JarrettH]

It's honestly hard to tell jinc and xbr apart for chroma for *film movies* The most obvious thing I see is xbr being slightly more saturated and it may be less granular and more well defined...may be...

xbr is now faster than jinc for chroma upscaling, madshi

and re: image doubling in general...is the idea behind doubling supposed to get you closer to the original? (i.e. it's easier to present a more accurate picture on the downscale step (catmull) than for an upscaler to enlarge the picture)

[aufkrawall]

Originally Posted by Eyldebrandt

With HQ downscaling, by far.

Agreed. The effect reminds me a little of LL for FineSharp with the thickening of contoures.
This effect is less distinctive with HQ, which I like.

With HQ downscaling, it seems I can set softness to 0 without artificial look.

[Magik Mark]

When using DXVA for upscaling images, will the upscale refinements still work? Could hardly see any difference

Chroma upscaling using pixel shader is definitely no longer applicable

[JarrettH]

Originally Posted by madshi

Questions:

1) Which image upscaling/doubling algorithm do you like to use with SuperRes and why? IMO, SuperRes is the best of the upscaling enhancements. Jinc is the most faithful upscaler, right? It makes sense to use that.
2) Which values do you like for "strength" and "softness". Please note that the default values are strength=1.0, and softness=0.0. And these *may* be the best values. But you can still try other values to see if you like them more. I was using strength=0.45 and softness=0.20 in 0.88.13

4) How many passes should be used as default? 2

p.s. You've made super-xbr chroma and image doubling much, much faster in the last couple versions. I completely ruled it out - my times were too close to the movie frame interval (41 ms). In 0.88.14, my times are down to 25-32 ms (Core 2 Duo E6600, 4 gb DDR2, GeForce 550 Ti, Windows 7). Amazing, eh?

[nijiko]

@madshi , why not support for judging between vars? Such as if (targetWidth >= srcWidth * 4) then ...?

[madshi]

Originally Posted by iSunrise

I did a very short (to be continued) test between the new Adaptive Sharpen and Finesharp.

The sharping effect is about equal when you have Finesharp at 1.0 and Adaptive Sharpen at 0.3.

From what I can see, Adaptive Sharpen has a lot less ringing (which may or may not be a good thing, not sure yet), but it still does a very good job digging up blurred details very nicely. Very interesting sharpener to say the least.

I need to do some further tests though, not sure what looks more natural/accurate to my eyes this late in the day. Will do some tests and some comparisons this week and report back.

Thanks. Maybe I can add an AR filter to FineSharp in the future.

Originally Posted by SecurityBunny

It seems to only occur when using D3D11 with 10bit output. D3D11 with 8bit, it is fine. D3D9 with 10bit, it is fine.

Subsequently, D3D11 10bit output takes longer to go into exclusive fullscreen compared to D3D11 8bit or D3D9 10bit. Second(s) compared to instantaneously. If D3D9 can switch to fullscreen instantly with 10bit output, shouldn't D3D11 be able to do so just as fast?

Again, reproduction steps: Toggle fullscreen with D3D11 10bit, watch for queues to fill. Toggle back to windowed mode, watch for queues to fill. Toggle back to fullscreen, present queue does not fill and the video frames appear to stutter. Continuous playback the entire time, no pausing between toggling modes. Need to pause and unpause to get queues to fill again / get smooth playback.

No other software running in the background - only the media player. Changing my monitor to 24hz, the present queue starts at 6-7 from the get-go instead of filled to 14-15 like at 59.95hz. When trying to reproduce by toggling fullscreen, windowed, and fullscreen again, playback appears to be laggier but has the same dropped render queue and present queue with the higher refresh rate. (0-2 & 2-5 respectively) I usually just keep my monitor at 60hz, but figured I'd see if it is any different at 24hz for you. Unfortunately it isn't.

I'm slightly confused now. First you're saying at 59.95hz the present queue is nicely filled. And then you're saying it's not any different at 24hz for you. That seems to contract itself, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Eyldebrandt

First, the new SuperRes is no longer destructive as the old one in somes demanding scene with very high bitrate, which is a very good thing.
On others points, the result seems very similar to the old version with everything @ 0.0 except strength, which is also a very good thing to me, regarding it was my set up.
On aliasing and ringing control, the improvement seems really efficient.

Yes, these are all good and correct observations. The old algo introduced some ringing and aliasing. I think that's why Shiandow added AR and AA to the algo in the first place. The new algo doesn't ring/alias, anymore, so AR and AA could be removed.

Originally Posted by Eyldebrandt

About AdaptativeSharpen.
Obviously, it's by far superior to FineSharp and LumaSharpen, on each particularity they've got.
It's fast and the aliasing and ringing control is amazing regarding his strength of effect.
With moderate set, it's an all-around process for very HQ content.
But, on med sources, like 720p and DVD content, the result is ugly.
That's based on my personal taste, and i basically think that sharpen algorithms are negatives ways with low quality content.

It may be superior to FineSharp in some aspects, but my honest opinion is that FineSharp has a better look to it. Using FineSharp it seems to me that the image gets "clearer" (image detail is easier to see), but it doesn't introduce the usual "digitally sharpened" look. AdaptiveSharpen may have less ringing, and some other advantages over FineSharp, but to my eyes AdaptiveSharpen produces the same old "digitally sharpened" look, where edges get sharper, but the whole image looks just "bloated up" somehow. Just my personal opinion, of course.

I find that SuperRes without HQ downscaling reproduces a look more similar to AdaptiveSharpen, and SuperRes with HQ downscaling is nearer to FineSharp. However, SuperRes with HQ downscaling is able to achieve sharpness levels FineSharp can't reach, without being destructive. So I like SuperRes with HQ downscaling. It needs a performance boost, though.

Originally Posted by JarrettH

It's honestly hard to tell jinc and xbr apart for chroma for *film movies* The most obvious thing I see is xbr being slightly more saturated and it may be less granular and more well defined...may be...

xbr is now faster than jinc for chroma upscaling, madshi

Yes, the latest speed increases should have made super-xbr slightly faster than Jinc AR for chroma upscaling, and very near to Jinc AR performance in image doubling. Of course for image upscaling Jinc AR still has the big advantage of being able to scale to any resolution, while super-xbr can only exactly double the image size.

Originally Posted by JarrettH

and re: image doubling in general...is the idea behind doubling supposed to get you closer to the original? (i.e. it's easier to present a more accurate picture on the downscale step (catmull) than for an upscaler to enlarge the picture)

Some of the better upscalers (like NNEDI3 and super-xbr) can only do 200% steps. They cannot upscale to 150% or anything other than 200%.

Originally Posted by Eyldebrandt

Strength is 0.35 and softness is 0.0, with HQ downscaling.

With HQ downscaling, by far.

5 passes on most Blu-ray content.
With very soft pictures, i set it to 7.

Originally Posted by aufkrawall

Agreed. The effect reminds me a little of LL for FineSharp with the thickening of contoures.
This effect is less distinctive with HQ, which I like.

With HQ downscaling, it seems I can set softness to 0 without artificial look.

So you both like softness set to 0.0 and HQ downscaling enabled. That's good to hear, it matches my own preferences. How about strength, though? @Eyldebrandt, is 0.35 a random value? Or do you really like it better than 1.00? Personally, I'm using 1.00. Of course using 0.35 and increasing the number of passes should work well, too. But I wonder if using 1.00 and a lower number of passes shouldn't achieve similar results with faster performance?

Originally Posted by Magik Mark

When using DXVA for upscaling images, will the upscale refinements still work? Could hardly see any difference

Chroma upscaling using pixel shader is definitely no longer applicable

Good question. Chroma upscaling definitely doesn't work when using DXVA scaling. I think upscaling refinement probably won't work, either. Although I think it should be possible to make FineSharp, LumaSharpen and AdaptiveSharpen work. But SuperRes won't work, because SuperRes needs an "original image" in RGB to compare to. And DXVA upscaling needs an NV12 "original image", which SuperRes can't access and wouldn't know what to do with. And about FineSharp, LumaSharpen und AdaptiveSharpen: You can just as well use them in "image enhancements". There's no difference when using DXVA upscaling.

Originally Posted by JarrettH

p.s. You've made super-xbr chroma and image doubling much, much faster in the last couple versions. I completely ruled it out - my times were too close to the movie frame interval (41 ms). In 0.88.14, my times are down to 25-32 ms (Core 2 Duo E6600, 4 gb DDR2, GeForce 550 Ti, Windows 7). Amazing, eh?

Yes, I did improve performance quite noticeably. I really think super-xbr for chroma should replace Jinc AR now. But you're still the boss.

Originally Posted by nijiko

@madshi , why not support for judging between vars? Such as if (targetWidth >= srcWidth * 4) then ...?

I'm not sure. I would have thought that it works. If it doesn't then please file a bug report on the madVR bug tracker. Thanks.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

http://www.mediafire.com/download/w6..._Comparison.7z

EDIT: Which cases madshi?

This looks interesting. Can I have a small sample of this video? Would look to look into what's happening there.

Bilateral chroma upscaling is different from the other algorithms because it tries to use the luma channel as guidance. So if the luma channel has a good quality and if it has edges which match the chroma channel, Bilateral should look great. But if the luma channel is aliased or doesn't really match the chroma channel well, Bilateral can look rather bad. But I'd like to delay Bilateral testing until SuperRes feedback is complete. At this point I think I should wait at least 2 weeks for SuperRes feedback.

[lanzorg]

It lacks a capital letter for Kodi DSPlayer on the madVR homepage.

Originally Posted by madshi

If you don't like FineSharp, I'd like to see some screenshots/samples which show that it's "bad".

Sorry, I was misled by my faulty graphics card.

As my GPU just died and as FineSharp looks perfect like with Avisynth on my 4 years old laptop, forget what I said.

Originally Posted by madshi

Not from the command line, but you can write a little tool which loads the madVR filter and then calls the interfaces documented in this header:

madVR installation folder\developers\interfaces\mvrInterfaces.h

I am very far from being a developer.
Do you know how for example to enable "smooth motion" from C# or PowerShell? Have you got any code sample, can't find on Github.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by madshi

This looks interesting. Can I have a small sample of this video?

OK, later this day.
I may have to find some freeware video splitter/cutter.

[huhn]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

OK, later this day.
I may have to find some freeware video splitter/cutter.

mkvtoolnix

[SecurityBunny]

Originally Posted by madshi

I'm slightly confused now. First you're saying at 59.95hz the present queue is nicely filled. And then you're saying it's not any different at 24hz for you. That seems to contract itself, doesn't it?

Sorry if I confused you. It was unintentionally. Let me try to simplify my findings.

When going into fullscreen initially at 59.95hz, all queues fill fine.

When going into fullscreen initially at 24hz, the present queue only fills to 6-7.

When toggling to windowed mode and then back to fullscreen again without pausing, both refresh rates show the same behavior of the bug I commented about. That is, queues not filling at all and playback stuttering until I pause and unpause again.

Again, only seems to occur with D3D11 10bit. D3D9 10bit & D3D11 8bit don't have this problem.

[aufkrawall]

Originally Posted by madshi

So you both like softness set to 0.0 and HQ downscaling enabled. That's good to hear, it matches my own preferences.

I think softness still could make sense when using an additional sharpen algorithm as image enhancement.
At least with AdaptiveSharpen with strength 0.1 I like to use it. Maybe softness can be removed, but then it would be neat if lower values than strength of 0.1 would be possible with AS.

Originally Posted by madshi

How about strength, though? @Eyldebrandt, is 0.35 a random value? Or do you really like it better than 1.00? Personally, I'm using 1.00. Of course using 0.35 and increasing the number of passes should work well, too. But I wonder if using 1.00 and a lower number of passes shouldn't achieve similar results with faster performance?

I prefer 0.3 because higher values mean artificial look with the cartoon sample. It's similar with passes, I don't prefer more than 1. More passes are not cheap performance wise either.

Originally Posted by madshi

Yes, I did improve performance quite noticeably. I really think super-xbr for chroma should replace Jinc AR now. But you're still the boss.

Take a look at the flowers of the headband:

Jinc AR:


super-xbr AR sharpness 100:


In this example, Jinc is better because it mixes green and pink less than super-xbr. And despite of AR-filter, it struggles more with ringing than Jinc.

[ryrynz]

Originally Posted by aufkrawall

Take a look at the flowers of the headband:

In this example, Jinc is better because it mixes green and pink less than super-xbr. And despite of AR-filter, it struggles more with ringing than Jinc.

Specifically the flower on the far left, it's a lot brighter with Jinc AR.
Also the other area worthy of mention is the inside of photo frame which has more mess around the edges. Looks to me like Jinc AR still wins.
It would be interesting to see higher sharpness xbr results here.

[tFWo]

Is it just me or is there a problem with the 0.88.14 superres? Aliasing is horrible in this example. I had much better results with superres in previous version.


upscale of a low quality SD source with s-xbr50 quadrupling (images are not zoomed in)
http://i.imgur.com/HTVWNIm.png

with superres turned on - 0.50 strength, 0.00 softness, HQ off, 6 pass just to show the problem more clearly, aliasing is visible with 2 pass
http://i.imgur.com/11jucqY.png

same settings as above, now with 0.50 softness
http://i.imgur.com/KOQwovI.png


Now that we can't control sharpness, antialiasing or antiringing for superres anymore, what are the values for those settings in 88.14?

In 88.13 i really didn't like the effect of high values for antiringing and antialiasing. It made the picture waxy/artificial. When upscaling good quality 720p movies i used <0.15 values, otherwise i would get a noticeable wax/oil painting effect.

Also in 88.13 i could use superres as a blur/deblock filter for low quality sources. Negative sharpness values were great for removing blocking/noise! Negative sharpness is not the same as softness, right?

[madshi]

Originally Posted by lanzorg

It lacks a capital letter for Kodi DSPlayer on the madVR homepage.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by lanzorg

Do you know how for example to enable "smooth motion" from C# or PowerShell? Have you got any code sample, can't find on Github.

No, sorry.

Originally Posted by SecurityBunny

Sorry if I confused you. It was unintentionally. Let me try to simplify my findings.

When going into fullscreen initially at 59.95hz, all queues fill fine.

When going into fullscreen initially at 24hz, the present queue only fills to 6-7.

When toggling to windowed mode and then back to fullscreen again without pausing, both refresh rates show the same behavior of the bug I commented about. That is, queues not filling at all and playback stuttering until I pause and unpause again.

Again, only seems to occur with D3D11 10bit. D3D9 10bit & D3D11 8bit don't have this problem.

Ok, that makes things more clear.

The problem is the following: As long as I allow D3D11 to use its default refresh rate, the presentation queues seem to fill nicely. But D3D11 is very reluctant to switch to some refresh rates sometimes. I've implemented a hack to work around the problem, which forces D3D11 to switch to our wanted refresh rate. But with some GPUs and some GPU drivers this seems to trigger this problem with queues not filling. Unfortunately I don't think there's much I can do about it. It seems that your D3D11 GPU drivers simply don't like outputting anything but 59.940Hz, for some reason. I'm not totally sure if it's D3D11 itself, or the GPU drivers which are at fault. Could be either, but I would guess it's probably the GPU drivers.

You could try creating custom resolution for 24Hz output. Or try using this tool:

http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Th...on-Utility-CRU

Maybe that helps, or maybe not. At this point the only thing I can offer is to either remove the hack I implemented, or to live with the consequences. If I remove the hack, you'll always get 59.940Hz, though, which is probably very far from what you want, too.

You can try some D3D11 games. Can any of them switch to anything other than 59.940Hz with your GPU? I doubt it...

Originally Posted by aufkrawall

I think softness still could make sense when using an additional sharpen algorithm as image enhancement.
At least with AdaptiveSharpen with strength 0.1 I like to use it. Maybe softness can be removed, but then it would be neat if lower values than strength of 0.1 would be possible with AS.

I prefer 0.3 because higher values mean artificial look with the cartoon sample. It's similar with passes, I don't prefer more than 1. More passes are not cheap performance wise either.

Oh well. I don't really want two options for SuperRes. I'd prefer to have only one. Currently we have 4. If you had to take a pick, which option(s) would you like to keep? Passes, strength or softness? Or maybe I could settle on allowing something like low/medium/high with different settings each for passes, strength and softness. But it might be difficult to decide which values to use there.

Originally Posted by aufkrawall

Take a look at the flowers of the headband:

Jinc AR:


super-xbr AR sharpness 100:


In this example, Jinc is better because it mixes green and pink less than super-xbr. And despite of AR-filter, it struggles more with ringing than Jinc.

I think this is actually beneficial ringing you're seeing here: The pink flower is so pink with Jinc because Jinc allows more ringing through than super-xbr. Sometimes ringing can be beneficial. I could show you a different sample where super-xbr looks better because of that.

Btw, super-xbr with sharpness 100 is *much* sharper than Jinc. Try a lower sharpness setting with super-xbr to get a fairer comparison to Jinc.

Originally Posted by ryrynz

Also the other area worthy of mention is the inside of photo frame which has more mess around the edges. Looks to me like Jinc AR still wins.
It would be interesting to see higher sharpness xbr results here.

Why *higher* sharpness? I'd rather say lower sharpness, because Jinc is quite a bit softer than super-xbr 100.

Originally Posted by tFWo

Is it just me or is there a problem with the 0.88.14 superres? Aliasing is horrible in this example. I had much better results with superres in previous version.

upscale of a low quality SD source with s-xbr50 quadrupling
http://i.imgur.com/HTVWNIm.png

with superres turned on - 0.50 strength, 0.00 softness, HQ off, 6 pass just to show the problem more clearly, aliasing is visible with 2 pass
http://i.imgur.com/11jucqY.png

same settings as above, now with 0.50 softness
http://i.imgur.com/KOQwovI.png

Now that we can't control sharpness, antialiasing or antiringing for superres anymore, what are the values for those settings in 88.14?

In 88.13 i really didn't like the effect of high values for antiringing and antialiasing. It made the picture waxy/artificial. When upscaling good quality 720p movies i used <0.15 values, otherwise i would get a noticeable wax/oil painting effect.

Also in 88.13 i could use superres as a blur/deblock filter for low quality sources. Negative sharpness values were great for removing blocking/noise! Negative sharpness is not the same as softness, right?

v0.88.14 has none of these algorithms, anymore. There's no sharpness, no AR, no AA. The reason you're getting aliasing is probably because you're using quadrupling with "refine the image after every ~2x upscaling step" activated. Try using "refine the image only once after upscaling is complete". That seems to help avoiding SuperRes aliasing.

The new SuperRes algo is brand new, it may need a bit of fine tuning. That's why I've asked users for feedback with very specific settings. One of the setup recommendations I made was to set zooming to exactly 200%.

[viewer]

Originally Posted by JarrettH

@viewer you should test again when you can

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.

[aufkrawall]

Originally Posted by madshi

Oh well. I don't really want two options for SuperRes. I'd prefer to have only one. Currently we have 4. If you had to take a pick, which option(s) would you like to keep? Passes, strength or softness? Or maybe I could settle on allowing something like low/medium/high with different settings each for passes, strength and softness. But it might be difficult to decide which values to use there.

I can live without softness option with HQ downscaling enabled.
I think it makes more sense to be able to control strength instead of passes. I think it's a good compromise to have only one pass, but HQ downscaling enabled. Both for performance as for quality.
There are still huge differences between low strength and high strength with these settings.
So my vote goes for just keeping strength as an option, setting passes to 1, enabling HQ downscaling and setting softness to 0.
The strength option could be even more simplified by replacing the value box with templates like we have it with deband. Then it'd be just "SuperRes: low, medium, high".
Edit: But maybe it would also make sense to use 2 passes and instead lowering the strength a bit if one wants the SuperRes effect more distinct with the high setting.

Originally Posted by madshi

I think this is actually beneficial ringing you're seeing here: The pink flower is so pink with Jinc because Jinc allows more ringing through than super-xbr. Sometimes ringing can be beneficial. I could show you a different sample where super-xbr looks better because of that.

Well possible, the pink flowers also look darker with NNEDI3 64 chroma scaling.

Originally Posted by madshi

Btw, super-xbr with sharpness 100 is *much* sharper than Jinc. Try a lower sharpness setting with super-xbr to get a fairer comparison to Jinc.

Lower sharpness makes the pink even darker, like if it gets mixed more with green due to blur.

[Eyldebrandt]

Originally Posted by madshi

It may be superior to FineSharp in some aspects, but my honest opinion is that FineSharp has a better look to it. Using FineSharp it seems to me that the image gets "clearer" (image detail is easier to see), but it doesn't introduce the usual "digitally sharpened" look. AdaptiveSharpen may have less ringing, and some other advantages over FineSharp, but to my eyes AdaptiveSharpen produces the same old "digitally sharpened" look, where edges get sharper, but the whole image looks just "bloated up" somehow. Just my personal opinion, of course.

I can see your point, and I have to confess that I never like FineSharp, so maybe I'm not absolutely objective about it ^^
Anyway, the aliasing and ring control of AdaptativeSharpen is so much better than in case i would use a sharpen, it definitively be this one.
He have a sort of very digital look, indeed, and wax is able to come very fast.
Then, with a well-thinked process around, and, always, moderate set, he's just a killer for those who wants a faithful and clean picture and a noticeable amount of details (with no creation of non-existant details).

Which is, obviously, a great possibilty.

Originally Posted by madshi

I find that SuperRes without HQ downscaling reproduces a look more similar to AdaptiveSharpen, and SuperRes with HQ downscaling is nearer to FineSharp. However, SuperRes with HQ downscaling is able to achieve sharpness levels FineSharp can't reach, without being destructive. So I like SuperRes with HQ downscaling. It needs a performance boost, though.

Originally Posted by madshi

So you both like softness set to 0.0 and HQ downscaling enabled. That's good to hear, it matches my own preferences. How about strength, though? @Eyldebrandt, is 0.35 a random value? Or do you really like it better than 1.00? Personally, I'm using 1.00. Of course using 0.35 and increasing the number of passes should work well, too. But I wonder if using 1.00 and a lower number of passes shouldn't achieve similar results with faster performance?

Well, I'm a conviced adept of the soft-natural look.
And never forget I have to upscale most 1080p content to very high resolutions (3440x1440 in my desk, and 4K in the dedicated room). I have Titan and Titan X to motorize those set-up, so performance will never be an issue
i.e, if I upscale 1080p Blu-ray to 4K, regardless the algo in Double, low amount of passes in SuperRes will result with a lack of precision. So I have to multiple the passes, and with this state, strength > 0.5 will result to some pixels moving, and you have to renounce using any sharpen if needed. If you add some softness, you can adjust, but why add another process to maybe reach a targeted result you can win with 1 process in less ?
0.35 is a good median setting for clean regular skin, with fantastic precision, and the possibility to add some sharpening if I want/need.
To be simple, in 1080p to 4K, 5 passes @ 0.35 are far more accurates and faithfuls than 1 passe @ 1.0.
But, with 480p to 1080p, definitively, 1 passe @ 1.0 will be better than 5 @ 0.35.

BTW, I have a question/request for future.
Is it technically possible to add in madVR a sort of internal supersampling ? I explain. With 1080p screen, you can't obtain the benefits of image doubling and SuperRes without some tricks.
If madVR could let the user set an internal resolution to reach by image doubling (+SuperRes etc..), with downscaling set up, the benefits of quality in HQ content could be very substantial.
It's just a thought, because it's currently feasible, but it's really not ergonomic.

[James Freeman]

@ madshi, everyone.

Here is a great chroma sample: http://www.mediafire.com/?nyzrd9qt6nv9t41
*I removed all traces of the original name of the movie, but if it is still found somewhere, all rights reserved to the original creators.

[tFWo]

Originally Posted by madshi

v0.88.14 has none of these algorithms, anymore. There's no sharpness, no AR, no AA. The reason you're getting aliasing is probably because you're using quadrupling with "refine the image after every ~2x upscaling step" activated. Try using "refine the image only once after upscaling is complete". That seems to help avoiding SuperRes aliasing.

The new SuperRes algo is brand new, it may need a bit of fine tuning. That's why I've asked users for feedback with very specific settings. One of the setup recommendations I made was to set zooming to exactly 200%.

OK.

Here is an example with a ringing/blooming problem (and other artifacts with hq on). I'm using "refine the image only once" option now. It's an SD source upscaled with s-xbr50 quadrupling. Image is additionally zoomed in 2x in MPC-HC.

no superres
http://i.imgur.com/9R65zEz.png

2pass strength 0.50 softness 0.00 nohq
http://i.imgur.com/mAFZDxk.png

2pass strength 0.50 softness 0.00 hq
http://i.imgur.com/91RmoRJ.png

2pass strength 1.00 softness 0.00 nohq
http://i.imgur.com/hmREzhz.png

2pass strength 1.00 softness 0.00 nohq
http://i.imgur.com/LL7DAKs.png

and to compare with 0.88.13 and the settings i used before (refine the image after every ~2x upscaling step, 2pass, strength 0.50, sharpness -0.50, softness 0.15, AA 0.10, AR 0.10)
http://i.imgur.com/WDyf1Rc.png

I prefer the old Superres look and versatility .