26

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I have uploaded screenshots from the 3 main movies I run window blind and other artifact tests. The movies are: The Dark Knight, Aliens, and The Matrix respectively. This does not mean that no other movies have similar artifacts, only that I use these as an example. All files are from their original blu-rays in .m2ts format, which means they are completely untouched quality wise.

On the right side of the screen, near the actor's face, over the lamp:
http://i.imgur.com/NsITu9B.jpg

On the right side of the screen, near the actor's face, under the lamp:
http://i.imgur.com/egRR8Xp.jpg

On the left side of the screen, the ventilation system:
http://i.imgur.com/0mF8Inu.jpg

On the left side of the screen, the first and second exhaust of the ventilation system:
http://i.imgur.com/gCDMQ2O.jpg

On the top left side of the actor's head and the top and lower top right side of the actor's head:
http://i.imgur.com/jCDqE2H.jpg

This relates to artifacts similar to the image above, on the top left side, but this also shows the merging that happens sometimes beyond window blinds towards other objects. For example the window blind artifact slightly merges with the actor's silhouette of white clothing creating a different kind of artifact:
http://i.imgur.com/b3HXMkQ.jpg

These screenshots are but a fraction of what is happening when the movies are playing because the artifacts come and go and appear in waves thus making them much more noticeable, especially on big screens. However, I did use "Large" Search radius in order to produce more artifacts so you can better study them. Using "Average" makes less artifacting but again on the same areas, while "Small" almost completely eliminates them (unnoticeable unless you are looking for them specifically).

27

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

But is there a specific set of parameters which I can tamper with to maybe achieve a better result?

Also, while testing, I noticed the following:

There are 3 specific scenes on 3 different movies I run tests and all showed the same result. For some reason:

A) When Motion vectors grid is set to 12 px. Average 2 - Search radius has to be set to small to eliminate window blind artifacts.

B) When Motion vectors grid is set to 24 px. Large 2 - Search radius can be set to either Average or even Large and I get absolutely no window blind artifacts

However, even 16 px. Average 0 gives almost the same amount of window blind artifacts as 12 px. Average 2. I believe this is abnormal, how can there be no improvement on 16 px. Average 0 on either average or large but I get no window blind artifacts on 24 px. Large 2 on both average and large?

Would it not be more normal if for example:
0 window blind artifacts for Average should be coupled with 24 px. Large 2 and
0 window blind artifacts for Large should be coupled with 28 px. Large 2 or below?

28

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I see, thanks. So there is nothing that can be done to improve the "Average" or "Large" setting regarding window blinds?

29

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I think you mentioned this the last time I asked something else regarding Search radius but it seems that I misunderstood you now and then. Can you please explain to me how I can change this parameter and try the "adaptive" setting you are mentioning?

Is it the "analyse.main.search.distance" on "override"? Or should I look for something different?

30

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

By "adaptive" radius you mean options "Small" - "Average" - "Large" right? It does work well, but I was just hoping I can completely eliminate the artifacts that appear on "Average".

I was thinking something in terms of a more complex search method to avoid the blind artifacts that exist on "Average" but not on "Small" for example. There is nothing that can be done to improve the "Average" search - even at the expense of a lot of CPU resources?

31

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I have read this but I am having difficulties understanding it; are there lines that can be edited or changed to improve the mechanism that searches to limit for example the window blind artifacts?

32

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I understand that but I am having some artifacts with "Average" and many with "Large" and I was hoping there is a way to have less artifacts on average or large searches by improving the detection method - is it possible to improve their 'quality' in a sense?

33

(14 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Hello everyone,

Does anybody know if there is a way to improve the search radius quality? For example have "Average" and "Large" better detect artifacts at the cost of performance?

Thank you in advance.

34

(6 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Then I am misinterpreting your post here regarding adaptive search: https://www.svp-team.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=473

I was expecting something that would decrease from large to smaller areas when window blind artifacts are present. Since some older versions any other search radius besides "small" or "small and fast" gives me multiple artifacts on every scene a window-blind like background exists.

So my other question still stands: what has the highest quality between small or small and fast for Search radius?

35

(6 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I am sorry, but what is this? How do I use and set this up?

Why is this not an option by default in SVP's main interface?

36

(6 replies, posted in Using SVP)

What do you by setting an upper bound value? Where?

37

(6 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Hello everyone,

Can someone tell me what has the highest quality between small or small and fast for Search radius?

Also, the developers said in the past that an adaptive search radius may come in the future. Has this features been scrapped?

Thank you in advance.

38

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Nintendo Maniac 64 wrote:

I should have clarified, the 1.5m error has been fixed in recent updates - no need waiting for the supposed "big update".

And it's back again in a similar form, but still different. The artifacting is similar to having an increased motion vectors grid. This is something that was not present 2 or 3 versions ago. This is getting ridiculous.

I do not know what does "FUD-like" mean but there is no reason to get defensive, the only one who needs to be careful here is you because you are stating information in a way that would be difficult to comprehend and promotes ignorance to whoever wanted to give it a go and started being informed from your post.

"But this is simply not true - 29.97fps content turns into 59.94 while 30.00fps content turns into 60.00, and this occurs regardless of whether your refresh rate is 59.94Hz or 60.00Hz; SVP does not use 59.94 for both 29.97 and 30.00fps."

Yeah it is, the statement is true exactly as I typed it, for some reason you are reading something else. What you are saying is also true, but you are forgetting one thing, SVP will ask you to convert to 60fps on both a 29.97 and a 30.00 source. Do you really not find what comes after incredibly confusing for the average first-time reader?

"But any flat panel TV that doesn't support 60.00fps is in fact out of spec because both ATSC and DVB specs list support for not only 59.94Hz but 60.00Hz as well."

Completely irrelevant to what I stated but OK.

"This to me sounds like you're saying that 60.00Hz doesn't exist on TVs, which is completely wrong considering that even old pre-color black and white content was broadcast in 60.00fps interlaced.
A TV's EDID wouldn't list 60.00Hz if it didn't work - that's the point of an EDID after all!"

What sounds to you is wrong, it is exactly what I typed. Comparing PC monitor's and TV's by today's standards is plain asinine for many reasons.

I am not trying to convey anything, I am pretty clear. As for your last and lengthy paragraph, this is less than 1% of what there is to know about these subjects, and explaining to you this was my intention from the beginning but I have failed to do so.

60Hz is not some kind of standard across monitors and TVs as you think neither did I mean it like that, I was simply indicating that SVP's 60fps relates to the produced 59Hz value from monitors and TVs and not the 60Hz value. As for the rest of your analysis; as I previously said, for some people it is important for various reasons, especially on TVs, you can find out more about on Google, but there is more into it than you think.

Comparing your laptop's 60Hz with a TV's 60Hz / 59Hz is pointless since not the same results can be produced on most PC monitors and most TV monitors as there are vast differences on most such available products, SVP's frame "margin of error" does not apply in such situations.

Also, "fast but not quite as smooth" is quite an understatement imho, and I do not see this addressed on the opening on your post in a clear way as it should be before giving such directions. Lastly, suggesting to lower Hz first before increasing it or tampering with the refresh rate in general without knowing what kind of TV / Monitor is each using is a erroneous suggestion for multiple reasons.

I thought you were mentioning the most common fps used, the average user will not understand what you wrote and the minor difference is quite a big deal for some people: http://htpcproject.com/refresh-rate-23hz-24hz/

This is important under technical terms since SVP cannot (will not) make 60fps for 60Hz rather 60fps for the standard 59Hz.

Also, to my system and some other systems I configure (with LAV Megamix), whenever I have higher refresh rate than the fps SVP is supposed to produce, e.g. 48fps on 60Hz, I get stutterish / jittery slow moving objects and sometimes even problematic entire scenes, thus I am 'forced' to use 60fps at all times as the TVs refuse to operate on 47/48/49Hz under any circumstances, isn't that the case for you?

I am not certain about the rest, but shouldn't SVP's "60 FPS" be paired with 59 Hz? https://www.svp-team.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2462

43

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Excellent results ThomasLiddiard, this information will get me back into testing stuff out myself. More importantly, this is vital information for the developers, which should help them better tweak SVP 4 / or provide a different set of rules and options which are comparable to SVP 3.0.

Also, I would like to note that this is not about my settings, which were a mere example, under most situations artifacting (haloing specifically) happens more often and at a higher scale.

Thank you for your time, I will report back when able, I hope others do so as well.

44

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Personally, I cannot suggest that you go below pure blu-ray quality, as all the movies I mentioned are 100% quality copies from my discs and not downloads - how much of a difference that makes with SVP, I do not know, what I do know is that as quality decreases (for example DvDs / rips), video quality decreases and blurs, hence less visible artifacts, for me at least.

@ ThomasLiddiard

On my list there are very specific points for a couple of movies, but beyond that just look up for the fast paced scenes for a start. When you feel satisfied with your results and want to go deeper, look for scenes where they are absolutely normal in terms of speed, but the camera smoothly moves around objects / actors (like the specific scene I mention in Ant-Man). That would be the place you want to examine as a follow-up. Remember, artifacts are enhanced in SVP 4 in general (besides window blind artifacts as far as I have noticed), but you are mainly looking for haloing (around actors, around objects, etc.) which is what happens more often and is the easiest to reproduce and compare with SVP 3.0.

45

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

ThomasLiddiard, as I said before, I am extremely unwilling to do a shot per shot comparison especially since the developers do not even acknowledge this issue. Regardless, I would suggest that you pick a movie from the list I posted on the first page, preferably Ant-Man. I am calling Ant-Man because although the haloing is more noticeable on fast paced scenes, Ant-Man (including others) has extreme haloing on slow paced scenes where SVP has almost none (one of the scenes is specified in the post). In advance, the scene you picked is not ideal for this kind of testing - if you do test again, prefer fast paced scenes in high video quality.

Is there a chance the developer build to be different than the public build even though it is the same version? Maybe a different branch?

46

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

@ stefanogiusio

I find the smoothness increase to be substantial and adequate with my settings combined with my TV's smoothness, but of course you can get an even smoother image, which would be 'better'. However, you cannot get a smoother image without having a significant increase in artifacting. You can always increase the "Frames interpolation mode", but as I said; everyone finds a different set of settings perfect for him or her, mine are just set in a way that almost eliminate artifacts, my best friend who watches only animations has slightly different settings from me, which completely eliminates visible artifacts, for example.

The problem with SVP 4 is that although it provides a smoother video overall (and performs better in general), it has significantly more artifacts, specifically haloing, at any given set of settings. Haloing is actually so strong, that settings which are supposed to deter the problem seem to actually disregard it and just process every other artifact issue but halos.

@ JeepingJohnny

I can assure you that having access to the advanced settings will not do much for the problems discussed here.

47

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I am glad that my settings preview helped you achieve better video quality, even if outside the purpose of this thread, but something I have not mentioned is that I combine SVP with my Panasonic's Motion Smoother (set at low) - hence I can spread out the effect and achieve a smoother image for less artifacting. A small number of movies will also require to have "Search radius" set to "Small" (Dark Knight trilogy) in order to eliminate artifacting and animated films to have "Motion vectors grid" set to "12 px" / "14 px" otherwise fast scenes will produce line breaks, especially in highly detailed anime (Vampire Hunter D / Akira / GitS).

In the end game, if you find something in the video that bothers you artifacting wise, or find that you can bare a little bit more artifacting but require more smoothness, you can use these settings as a base and read about the effects of each and every setting via either Googling or reading developer comments in these forums to get what is best for you and your co-viewers.

However, the main issue persists, developers have yet to confirm that these problems can / will be fixed or even confirmed they exist. SVP 4.0 runs better, and we need and expect it to run at least at the same quality as SVP 3.x.

48

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

@ Nintendo Maniac 64

I have already given enough specifications to spot differences on popular movies; I do not currently have the time to run all tests again to create a meaningful and elaborate comparison - I have spent hundreds of hours calibrating SVP / LAV Megamix / TV to achieve the best possible video. I will update this thread if I do it again, but I already gave up on SVP 4 since I consumed a lot of time configuring it but bare no fruits, so the only reason I do this again is if SVP 4 receives an update related to this issue.

@ dlr5668

In that case your definition of great is different than mine's, since default high quality settings give me headaches in Ant Man and anything else for that matter. Anything above the settings I have in SVP 3 will go from none / extremely minor artifacts to constant minor artifacting and so on. If you are used to artifacts, it is expected that you are not bothered from them and disregard them while watching a film, but I am bothered, as I tend to scan the video for imperfections and what I notice most of my friends do not notice while watching. Point is, SVP 4 will produce much more artifacts in general, with persistent haloing around objects even at the least artifact endorsing settings, and even when it is configured exactly as SVP 3 is.

I want to be clear on this, I had absolutely zero to extremely minor artifacts with SVP 3, while SVP 4 pumps up at least 25% more artifacting, and creates artifacts where SVP 3 did not previously create any at all.

49

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I cannot simply give you a link; but you try any of the following movies I tested lately and you can see for yourself that there is much more haloing with SVP 4 than with SVP 3.1.7 in general, and then try my settings as well. I have created a list, the specific movies I have watched and tested multiple times.

Movies extensively tested (Blu Ray):

1.    Gravity
2.    Interstellar
3.    Inception
4.    Prometheus
5.    Ant-Man
6.    Tron Legacy
7.    Man of Steel
8.    John Wick
9.    The Matrix
10.    The Matrix Reloaded
11.    The Matrix Revolutions
12.    Batman Begins
13.    Dark Knight
14.    Dark Knight Rises
15.    Avengers Age of Ultron
16.    The Avengers
17.    Star Wars 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
18.    LoTR 1, 2, 3
19.    Star Trek
20.    Star Trek Into Darkness

The most problematic ones are The Matrix fighting scenes (e.g. first training scene), Ant-Man in general (e.g. in the begging, when we first see the laboratory and the product is advertised, Darren Cross's head haloes a lot as he walks across the room), and Tron Legacy in general (mostly on fast scenes, like the car arriving in the arena). I have extensively tested with multiple settings combinations in the above movies, so you can use SVP 4's highest quality setting in conjunction with film optimization and no artifact masking to enhance the effect. When you target a highly artifacting scene, start lowering / adjusting the settings and compare with SVP 3. Afterwards, duplicate my SVP 3 settings to SVP 4 and check the difference - SVP 4 will produce much more artifacts. Finally, switch SVP 4's settings as seen in the image above, so you will get video quality closer to what my SVP 3's settings produce, but will still have significantly more artifacting.

You will not be able to get the same amount of smoothness and artifact elimination with SVP 4 as you can with SVP 3 by just configuring the panel, and when you manage to adjust the settings for each individual movies and eliminate all artifacts, you will not be able to eliminate haloing completely. In contrast, my settings in SVP 3 work for all of these movies and have no artifacts & haloing, or if they do it is extremely minor and nothing compared to SVP 4.

50

(64 replies, posted in Using SVP)

The results are the same on all screens, 60Hz, or 144Hz, TVs or PC monitors. Increasing the framerate interpolation above Hz makes no difference, lowering them below Hz defeats the purpose.

So nothing from developers regarding this?