madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[Celio1080p]

Hey there everyone, it's me again.
The guy who could not play 4/60 well
on my 3070.
Anyway, i found the problem.
It was because in the Nvidia Control Panel
I set 60 fps as a limit in global profile.
Anyway, to fix it, all i had to do was to create
a profile for my player
MPC-BE x64
And set no fps limit.
Thank you everyone, sorry my english.

[SirMaster]

Originally Posted by Siso

SM is broken in 113.

Never used it and I don't see why I ever would.

It causes ghosting artifacts during motion.

I've always used plain 23.975Hz

[mzso]

Originally Posted by ryrynz

Cool story, you do know you can undo it if it doesn't fix the issue right? Update us in a few months when you find out what caused it or with details of your new build, since you're obviously interested in wasting not only your own time but also others'. Seems quite clearly a personal system issue with little evidence to it being a problem specifically with madVR, nobody else is experiencing this issue but complain away.

I'd like to point out Mr. Write-only that someone already identified the madVR issue...

[Siso]

Originally Posted by SirMaster

Never used it and I don't see why I ever would.

It causes ghosting artifacts during motion.

I've always used plain 23.975Hz

You won't get these ghosting artifacts if you are on 120hz.

[SirMaster]

Originally Posted by Siso

You won't get these ghosting artifacts if you are on 120hz.

Why would you use smooth motion for a 120Hz display?

120Hz is exactly 5x24Hz 4x30Hz, and 2x60hz

"Smooth Motion is designed to display content where the source framerate does not match up to any of the refresh rates that your display supports. For example, that would be 25/50fps content on a 60Hz-only display, or 24p content on a 60Hz-only display."

So unless you are trying to play 25fps or 50fps content, but even then the 120Hz display should support 50Hz or 100Hz mode as well.

Only time I see a use case for smooth motion option is when using a display that does not support a refresh rate that is a multiple of the content frame rate.

[flossy_cake]

Originally Posted by mzso

The recent madVR crashing issue which we encountered, suggests otherwise.

Yes that appears to be a bug introduced by madshi's update nag screen, which only occurs in the beta version of madvr?

Disappointing if true, since there should never be any nag screens in madvr (I've never had one in final stable public version). I almost put a nag screen in an app once but came to my senses and realised how morally wrong that would have been.

Originally Posted by SirMaster

No reason to switch away from Windows 10 on my HTPC, just keep it firewalled off the Internet after 2025 or so.

So this means that Windows 10 STILL can't be reliably configured to disable updates? I'm still living in the stone age here (Windows 7) so I don't know what the current situation is with Windows 10. Isn't there like some Enterprise build or something that can be configured to disable updates?

Originally Posted by SirMaster

Why would you use smooth motion for a 120Hz display?
120Hz is exactly 5x24Hz 4x30Hz, and 2x60hz

It's because they couldn't successfully tune their 120hz mode to be very close to 120/1.001, so they end up with a dropped/repeated frame every n minutes, so instead of that they would rather have blended frames if they aren't noticeable to them.

[ryrynz]

Originally Posted by flossy_cake

So this means that Windows 10 STILL can't be reliably configured to disable updates?

Updates can be disabled perfectly fine.

[SirMaster]

Originally Posted by flossy_cake

So this means that Windows 10 STILL can't be reliably configured to disable updates?

It doesn't mean that. It means that Windows 10 eventually stops receiving security updates and would not be advisable to connect it to the Internet after that point.

[mrbinky]

Originally Posted by ryrynz

Could be your config. Try it without your profile after backing up. If it works load your settings back in manually.

Thanks, that would probably fix it.

I'm just wondering if it's worth doing, given that I've used version 17 since it was released and it seems to work. I'm not familiar enough with any of the beta releases to know if I'm missing out on any useful functionality.

Regardless what the product is, I've always ignored beta releases and waited until stable releases before installing an upgrade. I've done the same with madVR and so far never had any reason to regret that policy. But knowing that Madshi will never again release another stable version of his software does change things a bit.

[SamuriHL]

If you use HDR tone mapping in madvr, then yes, you are missing out by skipping the betas. Otherwise, no, not really other than a couple misc bugs that have been fixed.

[thighhighs]

Originally Posted by mrbinky

Regardless what the product is, I've always ignored beta releases and waited until stable releases before installing an upgrade. I've done the same with madVR and so far never had any reason to regret that policy. But knowing that Madshi will never again release another stable version of his software does change things a bit.

Just to clarify.
madshi said don't hack the madVR. Do not sell HTPC based on madVR. Otherwise, madVR will end for everyone Also, he's busy.
But this does not mean that there will never be updates. madVR: I Want to Believe

[flossy_cake]

Originally Posted by SamuriHL

If you use HDR tone mapping in madvr, then yes, you are missing out by skipping the betas.

Missing out on what, exactly? Can you show me in a screenshot how I am "missing out". I've got mine set to tone map HDR to SDR using BT.2390 - is this not ideal? What is ideal tone mapping from HDR to SDR? Or are you talking about HDR to HDR tone mapping? What is your target curve and why? Why should I desire that curve? What is the "correct" way of displaying HDR on a display that cannot physically match the peak brightness demanded by the source file? Again, you say I am "missing out" as if there is some good thing that I cannot attain. I want to know what this is.

[Alexkral]

Originally Posted by flossy_cake

Missing out on what, exactly? Can you show me in a screenshot how I am "missing out". I've got mine set to tone map HDR to SDR using BT.2390 - is this not ideal? What is ideal tone mapping from HDR to SDR? Or are you talking about HDR to HDR tone mapping? What is your target curve and why? Why should I desire that curve? What is the "correct" way of displaying HDR on a display that cannot physically match the peak brightness demanded by the source file? Again, you say I am "missing out" as if there is some good thing that I cannot attain. I want to know what this is.

Exactly, I would like to know that too. I think this is comparable to what madshi was saying about NGU sharp levels, that you only notice the difference in some specific frames with a lot of edges.

I think that BT.2390 tone mapping, even static, is perfectly valid in most situations, and in fact it's what I've been using for a long time.

[huhn]

tone mapping is not properly defined. is very open for interpretation and that's the issue there is no correct way.

[SamuriHL]

Exactly. Tone mapping is like the wild west. To explain how the beta builds have improved from the last stable build isn't really possible, however. Many many options have been added/ changed over the years that it's been worked on, all to make tone mapping better and provide an image that's closer to what you'd theoretically get on a 10000 nit display. Right now they're working on which luminance method is better. If you really want to know what improvements there are over whatever you're using now, you've got two options. Go try it for yourself, starting with settings you can find from people in the avs thread and tweaking them. Or read the several hundred posts over the last several years to see how it's evolved. No one can definitively tell you how it'll be better for your specific equipment and viewing environment. Nor are they going to be able to give you some magic settings that just work. The beta builds require effort but the result is a much more dynamic tone mapping solution that gets us closer to the end goal of emulating a theoretical perfect display on consumer equipment that is far from ideal.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

[mrbinky]

Originally Posted by Alexkral

Exactly, I would like to know that too. I think this is comparable to what madshi was saying about NGU sharp levels, that you only notice the difference in some specific frames with a lot of edges.

I think that BT.2390 tone mapping, even static, is perfectly valid in most situations, and in fact it's what I've been using for a long time.

I've always had HDR mapping set to "let madVR decide what's best." I always assumed that whatever Madshi programmed madVR to do was better than what someone with no understanding of HDR tone mapping (me) could manage.

Is that not a fair assumption? What does the software actually do when you tell it to "decide what's best?"

[SamuriHL]

I want you all to think about the premise of what you're asking for just a minute.

Hundreds of posts and 165 beta builds dedicated to improving dynamic hdr tone mapping, a 15k dollar video processing box released with the fruits of that work to make it easy to use, and you believe that static tone mapping or "letting madvr decide" in an old build is going to somehow look the same?

There is a large amount of picture quality to be gained by taking the time to learn how to configure and use the beta builds. But it takes effort and work. If you want easy to use, buy an envy. That's an opinionated view of all the settings that have been added to madvr over the years. Do you think he can charge over 10 grand for an envy to provide the image quality of static tone mapping? You can get the same image quality using the beta builds, but the tradeoff for getting something for free is the learning curve and accepting that the beta builds expire.

What i use for settings on a 900 nit oled is most likely not going to help someone with a 50 nit projector. That's why there's a learning curve. But in the avs thread you can likely find a base set of settings that are close to what you have for equipment that you can use as a starting point. It takes time and effort.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

[Alexkral]

Well, I own a STAX SR 009. Of course it's amazing, and without a doubt the best headphone I've ever heard. But the price difference to let's say a Sennheiser HD800 is hardly justifiable. And if, for example, you value the soundstage more than other features, you better stay with the Senns.

So here it is similar, the betas are using multiple settings and processing to get the most detail and luminance in the highlights. But you can get the same luminance simply by using the static BT.2390 with the original roll-off. And the difference in detail isn't usually very noticeable unless you're comparing screenshots.

In any case, I admit that I'm probably oversimplifying the matter, and that the differences can be more noticeable depending on the use case.

[SirMaster]

IMO tone-mapping on even beta 113 is significantly improved over the last non-beta release from 2018 or whenever it was.

I mean the non-beta release doesn't even have dynamic tone-mapping.

There's no reason anyone using madVR can't use at least beta 113 or 112b if you want to use smooth motion option.


Just drop the beta files on top and that's it. I have never seen any issue with 113 over the last non-beta.

[SamuriHL]

Yea that's a fair point, SirMaster. While obviously there's been a ton of improvement since 113, that at least gets you in the game with dynamic tone mapping which was really a very large improvement. Certainly noticeable without having to compare screenshots when looking at static tone mapping. But it all depends on what your goal is. If what you get now is "good enough" I'd question why you're even bothering with madvr at all at this point. Other solutions that are being updated to fix things like issues with Windows and driver updates would be far easier to manage. It's why I have two configurations in JRiver MC myself, one for "just work" and one for "I want the best quality I can get". One is madvr, one is not. I can switch between them in 30 seconds so it's not really an issue. At 900 nits, tone mapping for the majority of content (that's mastered to 1000 nits) is minimal at best. I only see improvements with 4000+ nit content when using madvr. But those with far less nits to play with, I can tell you, dynamic tone mapping in madvr matters, and it's not invisible. But there's really no need to take my, or anyone else's, word for it. Go try it.