Search options (Page 3 of 17)
Chainik wrote:4.9 is like 4.xx_lite, 1.5 times slower than 4.6
...and quite a few on here are using "lite" models which suggests that v4.9 might be usable for many. Again, Rife v4.6 makes sense, but I do wonder if seeing some of the major artefacts it creates might turn people off. I know I was having second thoughts until v4.9 came out. Not only did it reduce or remove some of the more obvious artefacts. But it also gave me hope that a better model would arrive some day. Which they did, and if downscaling is used then many users can use the better models too. I don't even need to use downscaling, but for blu-rays I'm getting identical picture quality while using around 25% GPU. So why not? 
Chainik wrote:ok, 4.18 is also two times slower, and it's also recommended by the model creator
is it two times better?
> I'm sure this is a rhetorical question
mmm.... yes and no 
trying to figure the best default model now
and it looks like 4.6 is still the best default choice
in fact, every newer release gets slower and slower and slower...
Yes but as you know that is because the models get more complicated. Also Rife v4.18 is recommended based on quality, not performance.
Rife v4.6 makes sense as the default model, but maybe have a look at v4.9. It gets rid of some of the worst artefacts from v4.6 but doesn't use as much resources as v4.1x models. Rife v4.18 is my default but it definitely should NOT be the SVP default because it uses too much GPU.
I don't want to complicate matters, but downscaling enables more people to use Rife v4.1x models. Just a thought
Chainik wrote:btw, 4.24 is two times slower than 4.6
is it two times better? 
I'm sure this is a rhetorical question but the answer is obviously "no" Rife v4.24 is as maybe a bad as v4.6 for artefacts. Being two times slower makes it even worse. However, as I said, even though the onnx files are available, the model creator has removed both v4.23 and v4.24 from view. The last official version is v4.22.
Blackfyre wrote:I use MPV to watch content and here are my current MPV Config:
ontop
fullscreen=yes
d3d11-exclusive-fs=yes
volume=100
volume-max=100
vo=gpu-next
gpu-api=d3d11
hwdec=auto-copy
hwdec-codecs=all
gpu-context=d3d11
fbo-format=rgba16hf
hdr-compute-peak=no
tone-mapping=st2094-40
target-colorspace-hint=yes
scale=ewa_lanczos
cscale=ewa_lanczos
dscale=ewa_lanczos
tscale=ewa_lanczos
glsl-shader="C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Roaming\mpv\Shaders\FSRCNNX_x2_8-0-4-1.glsl"
glsl-shader="C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Roaming\mpv\Shaders\KrigBilateral.glsl"
glsl-shader="C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Roaming\mpv\Shaders\SSimDownscaler.glsl"
This is strange because I'm pretty sure I saw this config when I looked at your previous code before I apologized. Anyway the mpv devs removed fbo-format from gpu-next some time ago. Other than that, it's interesting that you are using a HDR10+ tone mapping curve. Are you using a Samsung HDR10+ TV?
Xenocyde wrote:Lol, we skipped over 4.23, guys. Is that any good?
The onnx files for v4.23 and v4.24 are still available but links to the actual models used to create the onnx files have been removed by the model creator.
redraiderj wrote:4.24 is out, anyone tried it?
Yep and and my advice is don't bother. v4.18 is still the best for live action and even the dev has updated the README to agree.
Just an FYI that v4.23 came out yesterday as a fix for v4.22 but it is still not better than v4.18 for artefacts.
Be careful. I can't remember which one it is, but one of the "lite" models uses more GPU resources than some non "lite" models.
vs-mlrt 15.3 includes beta libraries for MiGraphX (similar to TensorRT, but for AMD). Those of you with AMD GPUs might want to encourage SVP devs to incorporate MIGraphX. The list of supported GPUs is below:
gfx1030: Radeon RX 6950 XT, Radeon RX 6900 XT, Radeon RX 6800 XT, Radeon RX 6800, ...
gfx1100: Radeon RX 7900 XTX, Radeon RX 7900 XT, ...
gfx1101: Radeon RX 7700 XT, ...
gfx1102: Radeon RX 7600
Drakko01 wrote:dawkinscm wrote:Others are saying it is not as good as v4.15. v4.15 is close but not quite as good as v4.18 so it will interesting to hear what happens after further testing.
Yeah exactly, sometimes more demanding translate to worse performance so more negative comment on the hardware/setup more prone to it , sometimes there it's not the case at all , like 4.21 that i think everyone hates. I tweak here and there make so much difference, for example i don't know what change in my setting, for i'm sure that almost all my main options are the same, and somehow my movies improve , the reason maybe stability after the 0x129 microcode, Who Knows.
The dev made no changes to features for v4.22 lite over v4.22 which means that v4.15 and v4.18 are still better. But you may be right that your hardware is benefiting from a less demanding model.
Drakko01 wrote:dawkinscm wrote:It came out very early this morning. But v4.22 is not a good model so the lite model will be at best the same but probably worse.
I think this it's not the same for every setup, for me it's very similar than 4.18 and I'll say that I'm some movies my experience was better. Later I will test the new model and see how it performes
Others are saying it is not as good as v4.15. v4.15 is close but not quite as good as v4.18 so it will interesting to hear what happens after further testing.
It came out very early this morning. But v4.22 is not a good model so the lite model will be at best the same but probably worse.
Unless you have a very weak GPU then you are not loosing anything by using copy-back. Plus I'm not sure that "all" of the processing is done in GPU. I use software decoding by default anyway. There was some confusion recently but it looks like you can get away with not using copy-back and mpv (or I think actually ffmpeg) will do it for you anyway. So again, I'm not sure you are gaining anything because it looks like some sort of copy-back process still takes place. Hopefully a dev will have a more definitive answer.
RickyAstle98 wrote:dawkinscm wrote:RickyAstle98 wrote:My actual scenarios
v14test3 320fps / v15.2 310fps (4.4v2 with 1.78 dynamic shape and 320 fps with 2.35 dynamic shape)
Starting models 4.16 everything gets worse, just a performance drops variables from 6 to 12% respectively, the movie dynamic shapes always faster (even when the targeted resolution is slightly higher)
So it works better with Performance Boost disabled? Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes and no! Easier explanation - depending on the aspect ratio of the sources, depending on the resolution and the model used, performance can be either increased to 2% or degraded to 12% with or without TRT boost option! Seek performance is night and day with boost enabled! I did not regret that I switched to a new library!
So - with 15.2 you gets maximum 12% performance degradation, but practically is just 6% of that!
OK thanks. So this is basically restating my point about @aloola's stats:
dawkinscm wrote:..on average he got around an 8 fps improvement. But this stat should be taken in the context of dev notes that suggest there might be be specific situations where the performance might be slightly worse.
RickyAstle98 wrote:dawkinscm wrote:As he said above, on average he got around an 8 fps improvement. But this stat should be taken in the context of dev notes that suggest there might be be specific situations where the performance might be slightly worse.
My actual scenarios
v14test3 320fps / v15.2 310fps (4.4v2 with 1.78 dynamic shape and 320 fps with 2.35 dynamic shape)
Starting models 4.16 everything gets worse, just a performance drops variables from 6 to 12% respectively, the movie dynamic shapes always faster (even when the targeted resolution is slightly higher)
So it works better with Performance Boost disabled? Am I understanding this correctly?
flowreen91 wrote:aloola wrote:v15.2 gives me a tiny FPS boost
v14test3 ~150fps vs ~ v15.2 ~158fps, also fixed dynamic shape (Performance boost: off) bug
15.2 changelog:
Upgraded to TensorRT 10.3.0.
Fixed performance regression of RIFE and SAFA models starting with vs-mlrt v14.test4. This version may still be slightly slower than vs-mlrt v14.test3 under some conditions, however.
Looking forward to @aloola benchmarks for the new TensorRT like he did before:
https://www.svp-team.com/forum/viewtopi … 324#p84324
As he said above, on average he got around an 8 fps improvement. But this stat should be taken in the context of dev notes that suggest there might be be specific situations where the performance might be slightly worse.
RickyAstle98 wrote:Xenocyde wrote:Worth installing over 9.2?
According to my realtime tests and encoding tests, the difference is starting to increase from 4.16 models!
The old models like 4.4 (v1/v2) encoding speed with 2% performance difference and maximum to 12% for newest models!
Fixed my issues? Nope, but now models look smoother a little bit! Seek performance? Variable!
Worth? If you want, you can test, for me new models looks smoother, what happens to you - who knows?!
@aloola already mentioned TRT 15.2 a couple of days ago and as I said at the time, on initial testing, I didn't see anything obviously better when 9.2. But I like finally having libraries that are closer to those used in the latest Nvidia drivers.
I know nothing about Anime shaders so I will leave that to the experts But there's nothing wrong with his config as such, he's just using the default SVP mpv.conf. Yes the config is a little outdated but there's nothing there that will make his output look worse. Then he adds some custom deband settings which is personal preference.
I assume that SVP motion detection is the default now when using SVP and I would like to use it if it is useful. But is it possible to fix the garbage frame issue where it and NVOF behave identical to "disable" motion detection? As shown before, IC is still the only motion detect that behaves properly.
Xenocyde wrote:dawkinscm wrote:Xenocyde wrote:I haven't noticed any smoothness problems since I don't watch anime. I only tested with my usual football scenes
and 4.21 still has the same edge artifacts as 4.20 in those scenes.
BTW, 4.22 is out. Maybe they fixed it with this one. Testing now.
4.22 is the fix he's talking about. It's a little better than 4.21 but overall it has the same artefacts.
Ah thought it was a 4.21 update, they don't actually mention 4.22 in the comments.
The dev mentioned it.
Xenocyde wrote:I haven't noticed any smoothness problems since I don't watch anime. I only tested with my usual football scenes
and 4.21 still has the same edge artifacts as 4.20 in those scenes.
BTW, 4.22 is out. Maybe they fixed it with this one. Testing now.
4.22 is the fix he's talking about. It's a little better than 4.21 but overall it has the same artefacts.
Yes but it's still not as good as v4.18.
exaltedtricky wrote:Dear community,
I'm searching for a player that can send frame-packed 3D to SVP, then use an avisynth script to convert it to sequential 3D, and finally execute madVR upscaling while bitstreaming common audio formats like Atmos to a receiver.
Do you chance to know if this is possible? Which player should I check into for accomplishing this?
Thank you in advance.
If I understand you correctly then the only player that does something like this is mpc-be. It can play frame-packed 3D and convert it to SBS/TAB format while using SVP as an external filter and MadVR rendering. But you might need a good GPU to be able to run SVP and MadVR together. More mpc-be info is available if you Google it.
aloola wrote:v15.2 gives me a tiny FPS boost
v14test3 ~150fps vs ~ v15.2 ~158fps, also fixed dynamic shape (Performance boost: off) bug
15.2 changelog:
Upgraded to TensorRT 10.3.0.
Fixed performance regression of RIFE and SAFA models starting with vs-mlrt v14.test4. This version may still be slightly slower than vs-mlrt v14.test3 under some conditions, however.
Thanks. I have been waiting for this. On brief testing I don't think I see anything obviously better than 9.2. Maybe I would see more advantages if I wasn't downscaling.
Nope. The dev says it's the same as v4.20.
Kyuri wrote:Hello,
I'm having a bit of trouble getting SVP to run with MPV with other scripts enabled. If I run SVP4 with just the "Open file with MPV", it works fine. But I wanted to add Anime4K script to MPV so I can upscale old anime to higher quality as I had done before. But whenever I install said script, SVP stops functioning and won't detect MPV, even if launched from SVP4. If I uninstall it, it works. Is there some kind of conflict between the 2?
Thanks in advance!
Did you follow these instructions https://github.com/bloc97/Anime4K/blob/ … ows_MPV.md?
Posts found: 51 to 75 of 403