Just curious how people like it (especially compared to proteus or pass 1 with artemis then a 2nd enhancement with proteus) and what kind of performance differences you have observed?
The oddest thing ive noticed in my admittedly limited usage so far is 1 section of the same 4 min video clip (1080p>4k) processed at like 21 fps but then a different section of the clip that was effectively the same (content and motion wise) dropped down to 1 fps avg and as low as 0.4 fps on a 7950x3d/4090 …which made me sad lol.
Results were pretty good though with slightly sharper more detailed video vs proteus in the same clip but i def need to mess around some more, the update landed while i was on a 2 week upscaling vacation (mostly because of the insane heat wave)
@Imo Yes it is very slow on my 4090 as well (~4 fps). I am trying to upscale 1080p remuxes (movies) to 4k. What is the best model and settings? Some on reddit say artemis, some say gaia. Would love your thoughts and tips, thank you!
I have very little experiences in 4 k upscaling yet because I normally upscale to full HD. My favourite upscaling method is Iris Medium in relative to auto mode where I tend to increase Fix compression, Improve detail and Sharpen a bit. Maybe not as much as in this example.
I use Proteus like… 85% of the time. If I use anything else it’s a first pass of Artemis and then the 2nd enhancement is using Proteus (usually auto or relative to auto if i think it needs a little nudge for quality)
Rhea works pretty well… I quite like it but damn is it time consuming. If I’m doing something like 1080p to 4k using Rhea ill usually see between 2-4 fps depending on the scene in question.
Oddly it seems to be faster the lower quality the input video because I’ve seen it get as high as 8 fps before but it’s rare. I’ve also seen it do 1 section of a video at 6fps but then a couple min later in the same scene it might only run at 2fps.
I don’t know if that’s because it’s still a fairly new model or just because it’s the name of the game.
I’m pretty excited to see what kind of effect the 5090 has on the process though… I’m sure upgrading from the 7950x3d to the 9950x3d won’t hurt but CPU isn’t really the bottleneck in this equation and that’s whether I let it run on CCD0, 1 or both. I’ve done quite a bit of comparison testing on all the models using different numbers of CPU cores and playing around with whether it has access to the 8 5.45 ghz vcache cores or the 5.9ghz cores without the extra cache but results were generally the same (slight differences in certain videos not withstanding).
For my experience it’s works best with access to both CCD’s but I set it’s parity to cores 2-36 so core 0 & 1 can handle general usage stuff but even if I just let it go the CPU has no issue doing whatever while scaling, it’s mostly a thermal thing for my OC.
I just installed 5.3.2 and after one evening of testing, Rhea seems to blow away Dione and Iris for detail recovered in 480i. Yes I know the model says it’s for progressive, but try it with interlaced. I’m going to bed now. Hopefully it’ll still be good when I wake up…
Generally speaking I’m using either Proteus or Rhea and I don’t think I’ve ever used more than 50 for detail recovery because after that it makes the output look artificial. I usually don’t go over 30 for sharpen either and if I can help it I will limit compression fix to a max of 60 but only in truly awful source files
I have some really fuzzy SD Video from customer VHS tapes that I’ve been using Proteus on with decent results but distortions at times are too much but better than what I found with Iris. Rhea on the other hand looks amazing, even on really poor fuzzy video, distortion is minimal at 2x. Unfortunately, Rhea takes 32 hours to render an hour of SD to 2x on my GPU. With results like this, I might just invest in a 3090 or 3080 if that’s enough power.
