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. |
21st July 2015, 14:27 | #32021 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,197
|
which 3dlut files created by which program are currently supported by madvr? I need to create a 3dlut file in which I can modify the input range to modify the black levels and also to change the gamma value slightly
__________________
Laptop Lenovo Legion 5 17IMH05: i5-10300H, 16 GB Ram, NVIDIA GTX 1650 Ti (+ Intel UHD 630), Windows 10 x64, madVR (x64), MPC-HC (x64), LAV Filter (x64), XySubfilter (x64) (K-lite codec pack) Last edited by Thunderbolt8; 21st July 2015 at 14:35. |
21st July 2015, 15:14 | #32023 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,923
|
Quote:
you can use madVR to change the "input" range by changing the output range in madVR and use argyllCMS after it. I do it this way too. to better counter my crushed blacks and white clipping on my screen. of cause you can change the gamma curve in argyllCMS too. Quote:
if i remember correctly color noise is checked by default. and it just has lower luma noise for more chroma noise it shouldn't be more smooth. |
||
21st July 2015, 15:31 | #32024 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
Quote:
It's the only sharpen algorithm that you can set & forget with a low strength, while still having a perceivable effect. I wouldn't use more than strength 0.2 and probably only us it as an UR. A SR strength of 4 is very unrealistic, it e.g. looks very bad with my cartoon example (very destructive ringing) and with a low strength, SR often hardly sharpens the image in a perceivable way. AS 0.2 still looks very nice with the cartoon example when I use NNEDI3 64 to double and super-xbr 50 to quadruple. For example, SR has a very minimal effect on scaling 720p -> WQHD filmed content, while AS really makes the image look more detailed without being destructive. I already posted that fence example where AS looks really nice. I'm gonna post another example with extreme scaling to demonstrate that AS is very useful. |
|
21st July 2015, 16:50 | #32025 | Link | |||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Yes, I remember seeing those spider images. And yes, he confirms it's some sort of unsharp mask stuff.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, that post is discussing the best algos to turn a low image resolution picture into the most likely truthful high resolution picture. The purpose of "upscaling refinement" is not to pimp up soft sources, but simply to provide accurate scaling which gets as near to the "ground truth" as possible. If you want to add some pop to your sources, or fix overly soft sources, then once again it's a matter of taste which algorithm might look good to you. AdaptiveSharpen might be great for that. But that's a different usage area than trying to find a scientifically ideal algo combination for upscaling. The reason why your cartoon example has destructive ringing with SuperRes is that the cartoon image already has strong ringing in the source. The proper way to handle this is to dering the image before upscaling it (and to improve the SuperRes anti-ringing filter, which is not optimal yet). Algorithms for that to come in a future madVR version. E.g. look here for a work-in-progress: Cartoon example: super-xbr-100 -|- dering + super-xbr-100 -|- dering + super-xbr-100 + SuperRes If we had a ground truth for this image, I bet it would be *much* nearer to the SuperRes processed result than to the unprocessed result. There are still artifacts in the processed image, though, I'll give you that. I think the artifacts are mostly coming from the SuperRes AR filter needing some improvements. So there's still work to be done. |
|||||
21st July 2015, 18:02 | #32026 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1
|
Quote:
It would be especially helpful for sources like this: https://yadi.sk/i/hp2iZS68hC554 Last edited by nemoW; 21st July 2015 at 18:19. Reason: added aliasing sample |
|
21st July 2015, 18:32 | #32027 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,812
|
Quote:
I think you have a very good point with that naturalistic image which should look as close as possible to the source. But I also think we need a more comprehensive impression. Upscaling naturally softens an image, and we're not always upscaling an image with the factor you have used for your example. So, will SuperRes still "add" enough sharpness if the scaling factor is much higher? madVR offers to run a sharpening pass after each doubling, but you said that SuperRes has less work to do with each pass. This covers with my following observation: SuperRes either adds very little sharpness at a reasonable strength or the image looks very odd with higher strength. I don't think we should be "too scientific" since it's a highly subjective or at least non-objective issue. Maybe if you run a computational analysis which compares each pixel to match the source the most, some algorithms may perform very well, but maybe the result is still not desirable for many or even most users users due to subjective discomfort? Ok, here comes the example: Original (yes, there are some weird ghosting artifacts in the source): NNEDI3 64 quadrupling + Jinc AR: + FS 0.8 UR: LS default UR: SuperRes 3 (else default): AS 0.2 UR: FS & LS are ring feasts. SuperRes adds some details from the source, which is remarkable, but it fails to really make the image look sharp. It's impossible in this case that the sharpness of SuperRes could be closer to the source than AS. So maybe SuperRes is nearer to the source apart from sharpness in this example, but I doubt many people would describe the result of it better than AS. Quote:
I think it's not mean to say that super-xbr + SuperRes looks totally cruel regarding ringing in this example. Even upscaling the original 720p source to WQHD with NNEDI3 64 doesn't look great with SuperRes with a strength of 1. The ringing in the face of the woman with the red dress gets much more visible than e.g. with AS 0.2. Of course SuperRes and AS can be combined to achieve more sharpness (which I think is "realistic"). But that ringing really needs to be fixed and the radius of 0.66 is definitely too low to prevent aliasing. Haven't tested yet which value I'd prefer. |
||
21st July 2015, 19:03 | #32028 | Link | |||
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
Quote:
So the only difference between LQ/HQ is going from bilinear to bicubic, I guess that does put things back into perspective but I would still like to run more fair comparisons with weak LQ in .15 and weaker NNEDI3. Quote:
I would use another castle picture and a screenshot from a 4K mastered untouched BD. I guess it would also make sense to use a noisy 1080p BD screenshot, because it would appear that SR likes to repair errors, some smart upscalers fail guessing and we are mostly using all this on low res noisy stuff to begin with. Quote:
Last edited by leeperry; 21st July 2015 at 19:46. |
|||
21st July 2015, 20:42 | #32031 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 174
|
Quote:
there is no "I like this image better because.." there is only "This image is closer to the ground truth".. someone may want the image to be sharper but you can always sharpen... some want the image to be more colorful, you can always add saturation... that's stuff that can always be done to the users preference... but the point here is a different one... the point is not to make the image more appealing, the point is for madVR to upscale as accurate as possible to the ground truth... there is no way to know if an upscale is accurate if we don't have a higher res image, that's why the ground truth image is so important.... if upscale1 is close to the ground truth, if upscale2 is close to the ground truth and upscale3 is close to the ground truth, then we can assume that images that don't have a ground truth image to compare to, are also accurately upscaled... this is not about "fixing" an image to your viewing prefenrece... if it was shot slightly unsharp, we want madVR to upscale it to an unsharp image... you can always sharp the image afterwards if you want, but people that don't should be given the option not to... and making the image more sharp because it *might* be more accurate without having a ground truth image to verify, is very subjective... people will think the image is more accurate because they like it better... like aufkrawall said, there is no point in having it at 30 or 60Hz..... simply because 24 frames at 60Hz will have 36 repeated frames every second, so the counter would be over 1000 after 30 seconds... there is no value in having it in that case.. Last edited by Q-the-STORM; 21st July 2015 at 20:51. |
|
21st July 2015, 21:00 | #32033 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 546
|
Quote:
Last edited by ikarad; 21st July 2015 at 21:04. |
|
21st July 2015, 21:40 | #32034 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 174
|
Quote:
e.g. if a filmmaker wanted it to be slightly unsharp... of course in some cases of very downscaled images you will never get an accurate upscale, simply because too much information was lost... but videos at e.g. 480x270 are pretty rare... usually we are talking about at least DVD resolutions, which should have enough information... Quote:
24 frames at 120Hz will have 96 repeated frames every second, so the counter would be almost 1000 after 10 seconds... Last edited by Q-the-STORM; 21st July 2015 at 21:44. |
||
21st July 2015, 22:16 | #32035 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,923
|
the repeat line is only there for rendered frames that needs to be repeated for what ever reason. this is not about presentation.
as long as this is not needed you will not see this line. the refresh rate has nothing to do with this. |
21st July 2015, 23:04 | #32036 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
|
Thank you for the in-depth sharpness comparisons everyone.
I had a look over everything posted over the last day or two, and did some testing of my own. My concern is that most of the test images that people are using as a reference are already over-sharpened, containing pre-existing ringing artifacts and aliasing. So in order to match the source image, you end up using overly sharp post-processing, which seems to be introducing a lot of artifacts around high-contrast edges. I would focus more on good Blu-ray sourced images downscaled 50% and trying to match the original sharpness, than using photographs or content from what appears to be low-quality or re-compressed sources, if the goal is restoration rather than enhancement. I do also wonder if people are checking the results on small PC monitors, or their tv/projection setups. In what testing I have been able to do, SuperRes seems to be introducing aliaising and particularly ugly high-frequency ringing at all strengths. Even with a strength of 1 and radius of 1.00 it's still adding aliasing - whether that is real-world images, or test patterns. Of course if you're combining that with a scaler that already suffers from aliasing (basically anything other than Jinc or image doubling) perhaps the additional aliasing is not that noticeable? I finally got around to trying out Super-XBR too, which seems to add a lot of low-frequency ringing with sharpness set above 25 - which you may not notice if you're looking at a poor quality source that already has ringing artifacts, rather than a good Blu-ray disc. Combining Super-XBR with sharpening to achieve similar results to 16-neuron NNEDI3 ended up with higher render times and worse image quality than just using NNEDI3. Here's one of the images that I was testing with which seemed to show aliasing quite well:I'm not really happy with how that looks using any of the sharpening options, or scaling other than NNEDI3. But perhaps I haven't spent enough time with the new options, I really haven't been able to do much testing with anything that's been introduced in the last couple of months at all. |
21st July 2015, 23:24 | #32037 | Link | ||||||||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think you're missing the whole point of my "research": I've no problem if you want to sharpen your video. No problem at all. But artificially sharpening video is not something that should ever be enabled by default in madVR. On the other hand, faithfully upscaling sources, by producing images which are as near to the ground truth as possible, that is something that would make a great default setting in madVR. Obviously faithful upscaling is useless if it's full of artifacts. So maybe there needs to be more work done on fixing the ringing and aliasing artifacts SuperRes might still produce. But do you understand my motivation here? I'm not trying to tell users what to do. I'm trying to find good default settings for madVR to produce the most accurate image quality. Some users might prefer it sharper, so they can add sharpening on top like e.g. AdaptiveSharpen. Fine with me. Quote:
You should clearly see that all the lines in the original frame are noticeably thinner than in the AdaptiveSharpen (and unprocessed) image. And you should also see that SuperRes manages to thin most of the lines back to what they should be. YES, there are artifacts. But if you try to ignore them for a second, don't you see that SuperRes brings the upscaled image much nearer to the original image? In contrast to that, AdaptiveSharpen puts more weight on the fat bloated up lines, to make them even more different from the original source. So AdaptiveSharpen moves the image away from what the upscaled image should ideally look like. To you it might look pleasing. To my eyes it looks bad. I think your whole approach is "wrong". You're trying to find algorithms which produce results which you personally find pleasing. The problem with that is that what is pleasing to you might be totally ugly to the next guy. Instead I'm trying to find algorithms which produce accurate results that are faithful to the original source. If there are artifacts, I have to fix them. But it's still the right approach. If the final results of my tweaks are too soft for your taste, you can always touch them up by adding some sharpen on top. At least you would then sharpen the thin lines instead of the bloated lines. Quote:
Quote:
FWIW, some time ago there was a thread in the AviSynth section about the other SuperRes algorithm you're talking about. The AviSynth experts seemed to agree that this kind of stuff (looking at multiple consecutive frames) would only work with heavily aliased sources. But our usual DVD and Blu-Ray sources are typically soft, and not aliased. So for those the multi-frame-SuperRes would probably not work at all. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
21st July 2015, 23:55 | #32038 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 139
|
Just FYI, SMAA and FXAA are post-processing shaders that work on the frame buffer by finding edges in the image and smart blending them. Unlike MSAA, you don't need any info regarding the object geometry, and could probably use FXAA or SMAA as photoshop plugins if you wanted to. IMO, they're sort of specific for hard-edge staircase aliasing you get from rasterization and don't really have a place in film anti-aliasing. However, super-xbr was designed for emulators at first, and at least I didn't think it would work at all for film content until I tried it and was amazed by it. Maybe these post-processing filters could be the same.
Keep in mind that because SMAA and FXAA have no access to geometry data, they do jack all for temporal aliasing or crawling edges, which thankfully aren't really that common in filmed content. |
22nd July 2015, 00:34 | #32039 | Link | ||
Troubleshooter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 339
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Turn FXAA off it you notice artifacts or dithering around the edges of objects, particularly around text". "Turn FXAA on to improve image quality with a lesser performance impact than other antialiasing settings"
__________________
System specs: Sager NP9150 SE with i7-3630QM 2.40GHz, 16 GB RAM, 64-bit Windows 10 Pro, NVidia GTX 680M/Intel 4000 HD optimus dual GPU system. Video viewed on LG notebook screen and LG 3D passive TV. |
||
22nd July 2015, 01:49 | #32040 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,650
|
Compared to MPDN the results from SuperRes are quite different. madVR's version is better with line thickness but also adds a boat tonne of aliasing in comparison.
It certainly looks like you're on the right sort of path though with SuperRes, whatever you changed there seems to bring it much closer to the original, just gotta deal with those unwanted artifacts. Last edited by ryrynz; 22nd July 2015 at 02:14. |
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|