DGDenoise

These CUDA filters are packaged into DGDecodeNV, which is part of DGDecNV.
Sharc
Moose Approved
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by Sharc » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:08 am

Is the YV12 a CUDA/Nvidia restriction? I am asking because I try to avoid colorspace conversion to YV12 because of the Chroma upsampling and Chroma Interlace Problem.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by admin » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:24 am

What color space are you interested in support for? Typical script?

These filters are designed to be used with DGSource() so obviously I implemented only YV12. That could change, however.

Sharc
Moose Approved
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by Sharc » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:31 am

My tape captures are normally YUV or YUY2, 4:2:0 or 4:2:2. Hmm, now I think to remember that lossless 4:2:2 is not supported by Nvidia .....

Script like:
AviSource(xxxx.avi) #typically interlaced YUY2 4:2:2
bob() #optional
Crop(....)
Resize(....) #optional
addborders(...) #optional
ConverttoYV12() #for DGfilters
DGDenoise().DGSharpen()
separatefields().selectevery(4,0,3).weave() #optional re-interlace - when bobbed before

Then encode with x264 interlaced

Edit:
I am aware that x264 will convert to YV12 anyway, however I thought it would be better - if possible - to keep YUY2 for all the editing and filtering until the last step.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by admin » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:52 pm

If your source is interlaced then you have to tell all the following filters for proper handling. So telling DGDenoise() the same via either ConvertToYV12() or directly if I added a parameter would be necessary.

And I would of course have to convert internally if I were to support YUY2 input, and that's why I would need a parameter to tell if the source is interlaced.

So I don't really follow your thinking. You can't get away from telling filters if the source is interlaced/progressive, unless of course you rely on the defaults. But in that case won't ConvertToYV12 default too?

Finally, you have to deinterlace first anyway unless you want trash as output.

Please help me to understand what you ask for here and why, in light of the above. I don't always grok things straightaway.

Sharc
Moose Approved
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by Sharc » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:31 pm

I thought leaving the YUY2 4:2:2 colorspace untouched would a priori eliminate certain chroma problems. For example YV12 interlaced needs to be cropped mod4 vertically, whereas YUY2 would accept mod2 cropping without chroma damage, if I am not mistaken.
Maybe it's just a fart as I have to deinterlace or separate the fields anyway for applying most of the filters, and putting converttoYV12(interlaced=true) early in the script is the way to go.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by admin » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:43 pm

Sharc wrote:I have to deinterlace or separate the fields anyway for applying most of the filters, and putting converttoYV12(interlaced=true) early in the script is the way to go.
Yes, Sharc, I agree. Let's keep things as is for now. You're right that 4:2:2 support would be useful and I'd certainly want to support it when CUVID does. People are hopeful for nVidia Video SDK 8.0, but it is still awaited. On the other hand, it is only a limitation of CUVID decoding. I could make CUDA 4:2:2 filters. Let's see what nVidia Video SDK 8.0 brings us.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by admin » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:13 pm

hydra3333 wrote: This wasn't me (it hung on the shack wall for 30 years) but it may as well have been https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5RV2 ... WhpcjZnY3M
Oh why not, a relative of mine is in this one https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5RV2 ... HRZYWtFbDQ
The spirit of adventure and discovery shines. So blessed you are to know such people. I wish they were forum members. :)

Aleron Ives
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 8:36 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by Aleron Ives » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:22 pm

This might be a dumb question, but since you're working on adding new filters, are there any prospects for replicating the functionality of Decomb this way? That's my most-used filter, and getting a CUDA speedup for it would be welcome. I'm not sure how closely related this would be to your recent work on DGBobIM or whether CUDA is even appropriate for this purpose... :?

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by admin » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:54 pm

Great idea, Aleron! Sure, we could speed up field matching and decimation. Why didn't I think of these obvious things? :scratch: Thank you for the valuable suggestion.

DGBobIM was mostly a proof-of-concept for how screwed up the IMSDK API is. Not exciting to work on that stuff.

BTW, Aussies swim real good. We may have to keep an eye on them.

Sharc
Moose Approved
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by Sharc » Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:41 am

Aleron Ives wrote:This might be a dumb question, but since you're working on adding new filters, are there any prospects for replicating the functionality of Decomb this way? That's my most-used filter, and getting a CUDA speedup for it would be welcome. I'm not sure how closely related this would be to your recent work on DGBobIM or whether CUDA is even appropriate for this purpose... :?
+1 for implementing Decomb (especially the FieldMatching/IVTC functionality of telecide() )

P.S.
I also like the show= and debug= options of FieldDeinterlace(), however speed is not critical for visual analysis.

gonca
Moose Approved/Curly Approved
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by gonca » Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:33 am

+1 as well

User avatar
hydra3333
Moose Approved
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:34 am
Contact:

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by hydra3333 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:44 am

Thank you, the new gpu based filters work nice.

OK, I did a test or two displaying an interleaved (source,result1,result2) clip in vsedit.
Reasonably clean, if blocky, 15Mb Source: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5RV2 ... Hk1UlA5c2c
Card: 750Ti, CPU: i3820 (due for replacement next year; likely a cheapie ryzen 1800X and 1050Ti, not a 1070 though given touted v2's of 1060 and 1080)

Confirming per some other posts eg viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=170#p6074 that the default setting (strength=0.15) for DGDenoise seem to yield a more"softened" visual result compared to KNLMeansCL at defaults (d=1 temporal) at least on my test source. So, easy, use .06 or something.

Sometimes a really old movie can be a bit of a shocker with grain and whatnot and the best thing I've found to date has been the old MDegrain1/2/3 eg
video=MDegrain3i2(video,blksize=8,overlap=4,dct=0)
which I suppose does OK due to temporal processing ?
I haven't such a source to hand to try, so what would be your thoughts re DGDenoise / KNLMeansCL(d=3) / MDegrain for those types of sources ?

I see with interest you considered the possibility of temporal option viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=210#p6137 and then some hesitation viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=220#p6153 and then a possible position of sticking with spatial viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=260#p6253
... I'm hoping the DG density matrix is flagging that gpu temporal denoising still has a significant possibility of a state of existance :) ... no plans for temporal ?
(google gives the words but unfortunately not the intellect to comprehend it).

Just came across the tips from this crowd, although I don't really know what their credentials are
http://www.cineticstudios.com/blog/2015 ... ction.html

vapoursynth x64 shouldn't make any difference, eg

Code: Select all

import vapoursynth as vs 
##import havsfunc as haf # http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=166582 
import havsfuncTS as haf # this version uses vanilla TemporalSoften instead of TemporalSoften2, as it will be "better" over time 
import mvsfunc as mvs  # http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=172564 
import finesharp as finesharp # http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1777815#post1777815 http://avisynth.nl/index.php/FineSharp 
core = vs.get_core(accept_lowercase=True) # leave off threads=8 so it auto-detects threads 
# the r'' indicates do not treat special characters and accept backslashes 
core.std.LoadPlugin(r'C:\SOFTWARE\Vapoursynth-x64\vapoursynth64\plugins\dll-to-choose-from\KNLMeansCL.dll') # the r'' indicates do not treat special characters and accept backslashes 
# LOAD 64 bit AVISYNTH  plugins  into the avs namespace 
core.avs.LoadPlugin(r'C:\SOFTWARE\Vapoursynth-x64\DGIndex\DGDecodeNV.dll')  
def main(): 
    video = core.avs.DGSource(r'.\z.dgi',deinterlace=1,resize_w=720,resize_h=576) # deinterlace=1 means single rate deinterlacing 
    videooriginal = video 
    video1 = core.knlm.KNLMeansCL(video, device_type="gpu", d=1, a=2) 
    video2 = core.avs.DGDenoise(video,strength=0.06)
    #video = core.avs.DGSharpen(video,strength=0.40) # 
    video = core.std.Interleave([core.text.Text(videooriginal, 'Source clip'), core.text.Text(video1, 'LNKMeansCL clip'), core.text.Text(video2, 'DGDenoise clip')])
    video.set_output() 
    return True 
main() 
[/size]

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: About DGDenoise

Post by admin » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:27 am

hydra3333 wrote:Sometimes a really old movie can be a bit of a shocker with grain and whatnot and the best thing I've found to date has been the old MDegrain1/2/3 eg
video=MDegrain3i2(video,blksize=8,overlap=4,dct=0)
which I suppose does OK due to temporal processing ?
I haven't such a source to hand to try, so what would be your thoughts re DGDenoise / KNLMeansCL(d=3) / MDegrain for those types of sources ?
It's not worth speculating about it in the absence of a clip. When you have one to share I would be happy to discuss comparative results.
I see with interest you considered the possibility of temporal option viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=210#p6137 and then some hesitation viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=220#p6153 and then a possible position of sticking with spatial viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=260#p6253
... I'm hoping the DG density matrix is flagging that gpu temporal denoising still has a significant possibility of a state of existance :) ... no plans for temporal ?
I've asked several times for a clip that clearly shows the benefits of temporal processing, either alone or in conjunction with spatial processing. Do you have one? That is what I would need to find the motivation to do something temporally. Meanwhile, there is always TemporalSoften(). My personal perspective (which can be altered by evidence) is that ghosting is anathema that I would avoid like the plague in the absence of palpable overriding considerations. Yeah, yeah, scene change detection. But not every frame is a scene change while it can still be full of motion, and hence ghosting. Please refute my view with some evidence, i.e., a clip.

If you want to consider motion compensation to combat ghosting, that's perfectly valid. But that has to wait for my CUDA motion estimation stuff.

DG density matrix. That's clever. Not everyone will grok it, though, especially with negative off-diagonal terms.
Just came across the tips from this crowd, although I don't really know what their credentials are
http://www.cineticstudios.com/blog/2015 ... ction.html
It's just warmed-over wives' tales, aka, conventional "wisdom", justifying some commercial product recommendations. I can't take seriously an article that provides a tip on noise reduction that advises to add noise. :facepalm:

Monty Python video enhancement algorithm:

1. Remove noise.
2. Add noise.

That tip is there only to push some commercial tools. The tip to prefer temporal processing is also just a push for a commercial denoiser. They conveniently neglect to mention ghosting. And it's strange that not a single image is given to support anything they say.

Sharc
Moose Approved
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by Sharc » Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:44 am

I am getting ugly artefacts (broad diagonal color stripes) with chroma=true in DGDenoise.
My source is interlaced video. I separate the fields before applying the filter. Unless I am missing something you should be able to duplicate the issue with any source clip.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by admin » Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:50 am

Yikes! I'll get on it this morning. Thanks for the report.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by admin » Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:59 am

All fixed. Thanks for reporting it.

Sharc
Moose Approved
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by Sharc » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:48 am

Confirmed. It's working.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by admin » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:29 am

Cool, thanks again Sharc.

gonca
Moose Approved/Curly Approved
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by gonca » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:45 am

Does DGDenoiseNV handle what is on this sample, film grain or mosquito noise, I believe?
http://www.mediafire.com/file/1djsss779 ... sample.mkv

If not, can you recommend a x64 filter?

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by admin » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:03 pm

Something is broken. Investigating...

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by admin » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:57 pm

Oy, that last slipstream was brain-dead. :oops:

OK, I fixed the DGDenoise problem. Now I have one little issue in DGTelecide. Fixes coming soon...

Thanks for pointing this out, gonca.

gonca
Moose Approved/Curly Approved
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by gonca » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:47 pm

Thanks for creating the filters

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by admin » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:07 pm

Thanks. Of course, it would be better if they worked properly. ;)

I just slipstreamed the fix. Heading over to the binaries thread to announce it.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4415
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by admin » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:09 pm

This works pretty good on your sample, gonca:

dgsource("sample.dgi")
dgdenoise(strength=2.0,searchw=9,chroma=true)
dgsharpen()

That's industrial strength. Reduce strength and/or searchw, or turn off chroma, if you like.

gonca
Moose Approved/Curly Approved
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: DGDenoise

Post by gonca » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:27 pm

I have read the documentation but would you recommend searchw=9 or chroma+true over the defaults in general terms?

Post Reply