1 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Blackfyre wrote:

rife_v4.25_heavy - 153 MB

^^ Has been released around 5 hours ago. Tried to test it, but this is the first time I come across this problem; even when selected in SVP it does not work, it goes back to the previous version I had selected when running a video, so cache for "heavy" does not even build.

Not sure if something needs to be updated for it to work properly.

I only tested v2 btw, did not test v1

Works VERY good here, it may be my new default... I don't get the naming convention, thus far lites have always performed better, but the heavy one is better quality and same or better performance than the lite one.

With my test cases of course.

Go to forum: Using SVP

2 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

RickyAstle98 wrote:

I think your shaders somehow interfere RIFE algorithms, because 4.26 was better than 4.25L during my test sessions, a lot, but pixel crosstalk still an issue!
What do you mean upscaled back to 4K thats output resolution now? (resize and upscaling interfere RIFE methods - tested)

Just to be sure, I just repeated the test again, the artifacts I'm testing/looking for are significant with and without shaders at 4.26 (as they are at 4.15l, 4.16l, 4.18l) and not visible at 4.25l (and 4.22l).

Yes, I meant the output resolution. Without downscaling for rife (and upscaling to output resolution of course) I wouldn't be able to get 48 or 60fps at all (GPU = 4070). I could downscale to slightly higher (e.g. 23041260, then max 48fps possible), but it's not worth it for my viewing pleasure.

While testing, I just noticed that if I set resize to -23041260, I see the artifacts at 4.25l and at 4.26. If I set it back to -19201080, only at 4.26. Erm... and -25601440 same as -19201080...

Go to forum: Using SVP

3 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

4.25_lite v2: max 5% less GPU usage than non-lite (4K HDR source material, frc.frame.resize=-19201080, fixed 60fps/SDR tone-mapped, upscaled to 4K with mpv/a couple of shaders) , no artifacts in my test scenes in The Martian, Jason Bourne, Rogue One, Big Bang Theory (1080p source, fixed 48fps) and downloaded YT-Video with different aspect ratio (fixed 48fps).

Smooth overall visual impression an 27" 4k monitor. Much better than 4.26x (which has many artifacts in my test cases).

Shaders:
hdebeband.glsl
SSimSuperRes.glsl
FSRCCNNX_x2_8-0-4-1.glsl
contrast.10.hk

Edit: I cannot post for another hour, wtf...

RickyAstle98 wrote:

I think your shaders somehow interfere RIFE algorithms, because 4.26 was better than 4.25L during my test sessions, a lot, but pixel crosstalk still an issue!
What do you mean upscaled back to 4K thats output resolution now? (resize and upscaling interfere RIFE methods - tested)

Just to be sure, I just repeated the test again, the artifacts I'm testing/looking for are significant with and without shaders at 4.26 (as they are at 4.15l, 4.16l, 4.18l) and not visible at 4.25l (and 4.22l).

Yes, I meant the output resolution. Without downscaling for rife (and upscaling to output resolution of course) I wouldn't be able to get 48 or 60fps at all (GPU = 4070). I could downscale to slightly higher (e.g. 23041260, then max 48fps possible), but it's not worth it for my viewing pleasure.

While testing, I just noticed that if I set resize to -23041260, I see the artifacts at 4.25l and at 4.26. If I set it back to -19201080, only at 4.26. Erm... and -25601440 same as -19201080...

Go to forum: Using SVP

4 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

I switched back to 4.22v2 lite. 4.26v2 has too many artifacts IN MY MOVIES (newest example: Jason Bourne, 8:45, Window on the right side). Could switch back to 4.9 I think, but 4.22v2 lite has great performance (FOR ME).

Go to forum: Using SVP

5 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

pensioner600 wrote:

I checked it many more times 4.26. It's surprising that many people don't see her mistake. No, I stay at 4.18, that's the best for me.

If you have The Martian: at timestamp 18:33 and later, you can see bars between the bed and his workplace in the background. At 4.18 there are significant artifacts there. Not at 4.26, not at 4.22v2 lite, not at 4.9(!!). All the others I tested (4.15v2 lite, 4.16v2 lite, 4.18, 4.18v2) have artifacts.

Of course, this is only one scene, but for me these kinds of artifacts are the worst, because they catch my eye immediately.

For THIS test case, 4.26v2 and 4.9 are visually identical at normal speed.

Testing parameter: 4k source material, scaling to -19201080, upscaling with MPV and shaders to 4k LED screen.

Go to forum: Using SVP

6 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Over the last few days I've often asked myself whether I could actually see the difference between 48p and 60p.

I came across the following page, which illustrates the difference very nicely. Perhaps someone else could use it: https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Go to forum: Using SVP

7 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

RTX 4070 here. Scaling of 4k content down to -23041260, frames x2 (e.g. mostly 48fps), then upscaling to 4k with MPV, additional filters like adaptive sharpening. Very smooth, very nice, GPU usage max. 80-85%.

Edit: Using 4.15_lite (v2).

Go to forum: Using SVP

8 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

RickyAstle98 wrote:

HAGS ON is 25% perf drop? I think it would increase performance, no?

There isn't a perf drop in every situation. I did some research earlier, it was a "big" problem especially with Windows 10 and - later on - with 30xx GPUs from Nvidia. With the 40s you can actually nearly always switch on HAGS, in particular it is a mandatory requirement for DLSS3. Also important seems to be a CPU, which is always bored anyway (i.e. the CPU has no problem doing the scheduling work).

My own (not very extensive) tests showed that there is no recognizable difference in RIFE with my 4070 and i9 12900KF (Win11 24H2, Build 26100.1). Note: I'm not really interested in pure FPS, I'm interested in whether I can see/"feel" it and how the load on the GPU develops (i.e. how much room for improvement there is). With the 4K movies, which I downscale to slightly more than 1440p, there was no difference at x2.

But - your milage may vary, I suggest doing some testing yourself. Especially if you are using VR.

Update: I'm sorry, I can't post another answer... DLSS3 frame generation and 6% performance improvement is a rounding error.

Go to forum: Using SVP

9 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

4.16 lite is really good, my first tests show the same quality with action movies as 4.15v2 - but 50% better performance. I could go up from x2 (48fps) to x2,5 (60fps) on a 4070 (about 90% GPU) for (nearly) 4K movies.

Go to forum: Using SVP

10 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

Olombo wrote:

Abraxas: how is it possible you can watch 4k x2 UHD with a 4070? I can not get it running without frame drops with a 4090 and mpc-hc?

I hope the attached screenshots show, that I'm telling the truth (you never know, internet...) - and how I set SVP up. I'm watching The Martian HDR 4K (as I said before, not in real 4K resolution but in the middle of 1080p and 2160p) Edition using MVP with custom shaders.

"Wiedergabe mit" means "Playing at"

Win11 24H2, @120Hz

Go to forum: Using SVP

11 Reply by abraxas

(2,112 replies, posted in Using SVP)

SHTH34D wrote:

Hmmm, either something is wrong with my configuration or we have different hardware. I watch 4k HDR movies at full HDR10 quality, aiming for 60fps. I have a 7800x3d with 32GB DDR5 6600mhz RAM in a X670-I Strix motherboard and a 4090. If I choose any setting above RIFE 4.9 and/or above Movie 2x (even 50fps) it becomes an unwatchable, stuttery mess.

Have you tried setting a different frame.resize limit? I set mine to -23041260 (median of 1080p/HD and 2160p/4k/UHD) and I can watch 4k-HDR-movies at x2 frames on a 4070 with about 80-90% GPU (DDR4, i9 12900KF) using RIFE 4.15v2/2 GPU threads.

Go to forum: Using SVP