undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrossy8y ago0 comments

That's misleading. You can't use madVR with mpv, but that doesn't mean you can't have high quality scaling and dithering. madVR has NGU, which mpv doesn't have, and it has error-diffusion dithering, which mpv doesn't have, so if you need those, the lack of madVR support could be a deal breaker, but the difference in quality between those algorithms and the ones in mpv is fairly subjective. I feel like all the trendy super-resolution algorithms introduce too many ringing, aliasing and strange watercolour-like artefacts, so I much prefer mpv's EWA Lanczos filter, though if you want, there are a number of super-res algorithms available as mpv user-shaders, including SSimSuperRes and NNEDI3. See: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/User-Scripts#pixel-sh...

mpv supports display calibration and HDR conversion as well. You can load a 3DLUT for display calibration if you want, but for mpv, you would more likely load an ICC profile and have it generate the correct LUT automatically. You can even just let it pick up the ICC profile configured in the operating system. As for HDR, there are a number of built-in tone mapping algorithms: https://mpv.io/manual/master/#options-hdr-tone-mapping

0 comments

puzzlingcaptcha8y ago

I'll grant you that you can take advantage of calibration in mpv if you can generate a ICC profile containing 3dlut data, I didn't know that.

I disagree on a couple of points though. Jinc may in fact produce noticeable ringing (while NGU doesn't), and neither produce aliasing so asserting the opposite seems strange. The difference in sharpness is also quite obvious. On top of that mpv's anti-ringing filter is very basic in comparison.

HDR processing also seems quite limited and requires a lot of hand-tuning compared to madVR.

If it works for you, great, but it would be disingenuous to say that both programs are at a feature parity.

bjin8y ago

So, going through the "missing pieces" list you provided earlier, the only thing that actually holds is probably just NGU. You can insist that it's a "deal breaker" for you, fine. But attacking others being disingenuous simply because they don't agree is probably too much.

Context for others: NGU is a proprietary algorithm created by the author of madVR.

rossyOP8y ago

> HDR processing also seems quite limited and requires a lot of hand-tuning compared to madVR.

I'll admit I haven't watched any HDR content in mpv yet, but it supports all the standard tone-mapping algorithms (hable, reinhard, etc.) and apparently the default algorithm (mobius) was chosen for its colour accuracy.

I'm not saying madVR doesn't have its strengths. Error-diffusion dithering is strictly more accurate than what mpv does, and for people who like super-resolution upscalers, madVR tends to have a larger selection and faster implementations. Still, it would be disingenuous to say that madVR has a larger feature-set than mpv. They have different feature-sets. mpv's convolution-based upscalers are much more tunable and its colour management is more advanced, since it can use an ICC profile to auto-generate a LUT for any input gamut, rather than relying on an external CMS for this.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse