AMD FidelityFX FSR Source Code Released & Updates Posted, Uses Lanczos under the Hood

[wolf]

To which I ask how can a AI know personal preference of a random individual!!? I provided plenty of examples the only area's DLSS appeared better I could just as easily simulate with CAS if you want blurry and washed out color.

Did I imply that? I mean if you take a game that has both DLSS and FSR, and show side by sides of both to a bunch of people, their preferences on which looks better will vary from person to person. As for the rest... believe what you want to believe I guess, your prerogative. Me? I tick the box and enjoy the output.

 

[InVasMani]

This is true, the quality upscale in DLSS is excellent. Its just a shame that it magnifies deficiencies that are inherent to temporal solutions. I may have been being facetious, but I do believe DLSS 1.0 would have been successful if Nvidia took AMD's approach with FSR.

If you look at the recent RDR2 screenshots on TPU comparing DLSS on/off even in the thumbnail you can see how DLSS is killing the visibility of the footprints significantly on top of the being much softer and color just crushed I mean look at tree's and color of the leaves look at the characters pants and shadows on them and just the shadows in general between native and DLSS even in the thumbnail image it's readily apparent.

 

[Camm]

If you look at the recent RDR2 screenshots on TPU comparing DLSS on/off even in the thumbnail you can see how DLSS is killing the visibility of the footprints significantly on top of the being much softer and color just crushed I mean look at tree's and color of the leaves look at the characters pants and shadows on them and just the shadows in general between native and DLSS even in the thumbnail image it's readily apparent.

Agreed, its pretty gross. I do believe this is an outlier though rather than representative of the whole.

 

[Deleted member 190774]

Did I imply that? I mean if you take a game that has both DLSS and FSR, and show side by sides of both to a bunch of people, their preferences on which looks better will vary from person to person. As for the rest... believe what you want to believe I guess, your prerogative. Me? I tick the box and enjoy the output.

This is the debate I've been trying to diffuse on another popular tech' website; much of it comes down to personal taste. I've given up posting there now as you cannot have a debate in the face of such aggressive fanaticism!

In one comparison, the forum member was demonstrating Control, with DLSS in the left image, and a CAS sharpened image on the right side. Of course, one camp of responders is so adamant that the DLSS image is better, while as I flick between the two, the DLSS image suddenly looks as though I can no longer focus - my vision has gone kapput! It's a bizarre experience, making the CAS image appear much more natural to me - on the whole.

 

[nguyen]

This is the debate I've been trying to diffuse on another popular tech' website; much of it comes down to personal taste. I've given up posting there now as you cannot have a debate in the face of such aggressive fanaticism!

In one comparison, the forum member was demonstrating Control, with DLSS in the left image, and a CAS sharpened image on the right side. Of course, one camp of responders is so adamant that the DLSS image is better, while as I flick between the two, the DLSS image suddenly looks as though I can no longer focus - my vision has gone kapput! It's a bizarre experience, making the CAS image appear much more natural to me - on the whole.

Relatively Sharp = Good
Slightly Blurry = Good (better anti aliasing)
Overly Sharp = Bad
Too blurry = Bad

 

[wolf]

you cannot have a debate in the face of such aggressive fanaticism!

Indeed, and personal preference really is king in all situations. Like some people like motion blur, some hate it, some like AA, some hate it, some people don't even play with shadows! Some games on VA monitors, some on IPS etc etc it's endless.

So I concur that often discussions just go absolutely nowhere, because neither side is willing to concede, and neither is really wrong in the sense that you are allowed to prefer whichever image you like.

One big problem with debating, specifically on the internet, is that people state their opinions and ‘personal truths’ as if they are facts - ‘things that are known or proven to be true’ - when they more often are not facts in that sense, it's just the truth as they see it.

 

[mtcn77]

Most sharp filters incur heavy penalties in scores of undersampling artefacts. It is always attributed with a form of compromise. We should be aware of that before pointing the finger. It all comes down to where the compromise is going to be. Good filters are not computationally cheap, defeating their purpose.

 

[THU31]

NVIDIA has Lanczos upscaling that can be enabled in NVIDIA Inspector. The downside is that the UI will be upscaled as well, because you have to set a lower resolution.

 

[mtcn77]

Well, lanczos can be a good sequential filter after some intensity balancing filter like bilateral. We could arrive at solutions which mellow down lanczos' too much sharpening effect.

 

[InVasMani]

I felt like a dilated filter combined with LCh blend at a low value had a nice effect. I think we'll see a lot of insertions of minor blend modes being combined with certain techniques that already exist to improve the overall results and mellow them out better.

 

[mtcn77]

I felt like a dilated filter combined with LCh blend at a low value had a nice effect. I think we'll see a lot of insertions of minor blend modes being combined with certain techniques that already exist to improve the overall results and mellow them out better.

I think what I like about superxbr is it compares its difference with a scaled image and only changes those pixels. Sounds simple, but works out like a charm. I've never seen anything quite like it in controlling ringing artifacts.

 

[InVasMani]

It's great for 2D, but was never intended for 3D however and causes a stretching effect with 3D rendering. Really xBRZ is clever nearest neighbor dilated scaling filter for 2D.

 

[mtcn77]

It's great for 2D, but was never intended for 3D however and causes a stretching effect with 3D rendering. Really xBRZ is clever nearest neighbor dilated scaling filter for 2D.

xBRZ is great, but I never said Z, I said superxbr. Which is different, though with the same spirit. It is essentially the spirit child of ringing artifacts. It compares a scaled image and makes changes accordingly. Like how a mipmap and a couple more anisotropic filtering(af) reads make up antialiasing, but this time it makes an anti-ringing filter.
I think I am quite certain superxbr 75/100 is the best for a ringing source(like a lanczos passed media) given that I've read a japanese blog on the subject. Text is the best litmus test in this regard.
Since we are in the same domain with MadVR, I think it is fair to say we could either run a prepass filter until the lanczos, or run a consecutive pass to denoise the image. It could take a couple of trajectories. We could filter intensities with bilateral before the sharpening noisy lanczos filter, or we could compare before and after images with superxbr and 'superxbr' it.
Such a good gesture of IHV's to take note of the MPCHC community. I'm very much enjoying it.

 

[Dredi]

Kinda hard to imagine doing that would actually compete with an A.I algorithm that systematically improving itself.

But it isn’t improving itself, though.

 

[nguyen]

But it isn’t improving itself, though.

This is why manually replacing the DLSS 2.2 dll into DLSS 2.0 games often improve image quality, the neural network is continuously improving itself.
Sounds much more advanced than some guy trying out sharpen filters that have existed since the 80s doesn't it .

 

[Dredi]

View attachment 209637View attachment 209638

This is why manually replacing the DLSS 2.2 dll into DLSS 2.0 games often improve image quality, the neural network is continuously improving itself.
Sounds much more advanced than some guy trying out sharpen filters that have existed since the 80s doesn't it .

If it’s improving by itself, why is updating the dll’s necessary?

 

[nguyen]

If it’s improving by itself, why is updating the dll’s necessary?

because devs are lazy that they don't bother updating the new DLL.
No worry though it will happen with FSR where people will have to update new version themselves.

 

[mtcn77]

because devs are lazy that they don't bother updating the new DLL.
No worry though it will happen with FSR where people will have to update new version themselves.

No, it is a superxbr variant through and through. Both come with their own rules, but superxbr is run on the cpu.