婆罗门
精华
|
战斗力 鹅
|
回帖 0
注册时间 2011-4-2
|
楼主 |
发表于 2017-2-5 18:26
|
显示全部楼层
So, here's a little test build. Simply replace the v0.91.5 files with these:
http://madshi.net/madVRpixart.zip
I've created a new NGU variant which I'm going to call maybe "NGU pixart" or "NGU smooth", I'm not sure yet. This NGU variant will be optionally available in addition to the already existing NGU algorithm. The "pixart" variant has a look that is quite similar to NNEDI3. Which means it's very smooth and works great to reduce aliasing artifacts in the source. However, just as NNEDI3, "NGU pixart" is quite soft. My development goal was to create a NNEDI3 successor which has similar properties, but achieves a better "quality per watt" ratio.
Currently available are NGU pixart in "low", "medium" and "very high" quality settings. The "high" quality setting internally uses the "medium" algorithm for now. There'll be a separate "high" algo in the next official build.
In order to keep my development cost low, I haven't changed the settings dialog yet. So this test build replaces the main NGU algorithm with "NGU pixart". Which means this test build does not do the main NGU algorithm at all. The one and only purpose of this test build is so you guys can directly compare "NGU pixart" to NNEDI3, for both luma doubling and chroma upscaling.
So now I need your FEEDBACK:
1) Do you think NNEDI3 looks better? Or the new NGU pixart variant?
2) How does performance compare for you?
3) Can I replace NNEDI3 with NGU pixart in the next official build (pretty please)?
4) Can I replace super-xbr (for luma doubling, only) with NGU pixart in the next official build?
If you prefer NNEDI3, please let me know why. If you think NNEDI3 looks better, please provide comparison screenshots (for luma doubling comparisons always include the original unscaled source, please).
Thanks!
|
|