Floating point division by zero is fixed. Reinstall VACore with version 1.1.1.

A message from Avast: "Our virus specialists have been working on this problem and it has now been resolved. The provided file has been whitelisted."

Awkward news, @rean. I have just downloaded VA and Avast has identified it as a virus. I had to manually configure Avast so that it would let me run VA. I have sent the file to Avast and marked it as a false positive (I am praying nobody messed with your site and inserted a virus in your file). Maybe getting a hash for the download would be a good idea.

Besides that, I also get a floating point division by zero message on the editor every time the cursor gets out of it or when I press control save or update to save and, finally, the preview does not work at all.

On the positive side, I have just played with it a bit and it definitely kicks the ass of my current denoiser with static shots. I'll do some tests with movement these days to see if stays as impressive.

One question, I have added ffmpeg, but have no idea of how to get the output to be in DNxHD or PRORES. I managed to get UTvideo only to find out that it does not work with any of the editors that I use. Is the DNxHD or PRORES output reserved for the paid versions of the program?

@apefos the latest free friday build (1.3.0) has default settings to remove small noise and compression artifacts for an average Sony/Panasonic full hd camera in 4:2:0. Try it for your sources without any changes.

But anyway, any average case may not work as good as parameters changing. For more results using this free edition, most time you will need to change only these three denoise parameters:

frames=4, th=350, limit=3

frames=2..6 to balance between denoise strength/denoise motion artifacts. th=100..1000 to balance between denoise strength/details lost. limit=1..100 to balance between denoise strength/denoise motion artifacts.

Any quality restoration is always getting a balance in required priority areas. And aggressive denoising is the area that requires more attention.

If your source is clean daylight, you may set frames=6 and find a denoise/artifact remove strength using th=100..500.

Probably these ideas will help.

PS. Denoising using the software default denoiser means also exactly "remove compression artifacts". It is because this denoiser algorithm is the best to remove H.264 artifacts.

apefos, Yes, I loose many customers because these things.

Also yes, it may be very complex for beginners. But due to the complexity it allows to do things that other programs simply can not or the alternate solution will be slower or require many software or user time.

User interface you mean is not possible due many internal design things. I am a professional programmer, so problem is not in my programming knowledge. So, please do not ask me. If sales will be success to sponsor my next development, I will create a node-based solution. But currently it works perfectly using text editing. I have done everything possible that it was convenient within all restrictions and features. And after learning times it may be faster and convenient.

The program price is connected with features / quality / speed. You pay not only for a denoiser with artifact repair tools. It is mainly a post-production tool that can do many things with your sources, and many things to mastering the result for end video product, including encode to mp4/webm.

But I can create a personal discount if ask privately. Alternative way: I can create a template for your camera/scene combination, so most time you will just use one mouse click to process any of your recording. It is a service I also provide.

PS. I have created recently two new YouTube tutorials to show how to use it for advanced denoise, plus there is many advanced usage tricks. If you would get more tutorials, ask me what usage concepts or techniques are hard for you.

I have considered your wishes regarding examples and have remade old ones. Currently 9 examples are published with image comparison. http://www.videoartifact.com/examples/

Topaz DeJPEG has some similar function for stills

Topaz DeJPEG gives you the ability to improve the quality of your JPEG images. DeJPEG eliminates JPEG compression artifacts, which occur as a result of saving an image in the JPEG format, allowing you image detail and color to be restored.

joethepro http://media.videoartifact.com/NeatBlur-TheBestBlurFilter.zip See these details lost. All these examples just shows removing of any 1-2pixel area difference. So the result is so plastic and looks bad. The only details are kept where there are lines more than 2-3 pixel in length.

Vitaliy_Kiselev do you understand a difference between "AviSynth-based software" and "AviSynth scripts"? Look at youself. And find a place in any of my texts where I sale AviStnth scripts. Do you understand what is a script? It is just a text file. How user can use these files? It is impossible to sell it.

Wow this thread got hostile fast. Calm down, people.

@rean I also disagree that neat video examples blur all details and lose resolution. The lack of detail you are perceiving in the after examples are the lack of grain. Once grain is added back, there is just as much, if not more, perceived detail after neat video is applied. The temporal noise reduction used helps to bring back details so you might argue there is slightly more detail after neat video.

@rean "I do not understand people like you." - Is it possible that your English is not so good and thats why all this missunderstanding happens? I will try to make my points a bit clearer:

"Your quality-night A/B example is bullshit (sorry)." -> The example is not good. I'm not talking about the software, just the example (pictures). I'm not the first one here to tell you this.

If you want to show how good your software is, you don't add another software on top. Why did you grade the example in Resolve? What has Resolve to do with your program? It adds confusion.

"It is sharping, and the core software feature." - There is a big difference between video restoration and sharpening. You say your software can restore bad video, but why is sharpening the core feature in this process? This kind of sharpening takes information away and makes postprocessing (VFX, grading,...) more complicated.

"these borders are exists in the source. It is a camera sharping settings. Did you compared it?" - Yes, I did. The black boarders in the source are much smaller.

"even totally masking the antialasing your software might have done." -> Your software can do antialasing, correct? It did work on the handrail, correct? But the sharpening/black boarders are so strong, that I can't see if your antialasing is good.

"Prove it. Point me a place where I wrote it." -> "I sell a video quality that is not possible to get using existing tools."

"I see you do not like sharping the software can do..." - Sorry, but those big black rings arround the background light sources are really bad.

@Psyco "There is no heavy bluring in the Neat Video example" - probably you do not see it or not pay attention. Every examples you pointed have heavy detail degradation. It is because NeatVideo used FFT-based denoise. Probably latest versions are better, but these examples you provided are bad. I see these examples were created many years ago.

"Your quality-night A/B example is bullshit (sorry)." Another users use another word: impressive and they explain their point of view. You're especially emotionally hurt the person and apologize. You want me to give in the face? Let's meet and have a battle. You don't want it? Then don't hurt other people and stick to a rational approach.

"Why do you add a grade in Resolve at the end when you want to show what YOUR software can do?" - Really? I do not think so. There are 2 results there: a) a software result and b) a DaVinci result. I have full rights to place to Examples & Portfolio area my examples and my portfolio. Software can do nothing without a user who used software. You will get very different results than my results. Because we are different. We use different point of view and different style.

"And why are there big black rings arround every lightsource in the picture?" - It is sharping, and the core software feature. Another software cannot do similar sharping, because I specially created this feature. This way has pluses and minuses.

"Also big black borders arround the handrail - thats just heavy sharpening," - these borders are exists in the source. It is a camera sharping settings. Did you compared it? Do you know how sharping works?

"even totally masking the antialasing your software might have done." - I do not understand what you mean.

"Also you claim your software is better than anything else on the market..." - Prove it. Point me a place where I wrote it.

"I can't really see that from your examples or comments." - probably, because you live in the fantasy world. Your idea about myself was wrong.

I see you do not like sharping the software can do and then you called all work as "bullshit" and to find fault with the rest of the. I do not understand people like you.

OK, I am the person who provided the night road footage. I have just spent quite a while playing with Resolve and the Ignite denoising plug in. I was aiming for a similar quality. I have to admit I did not come even near. I could get rid of the noise, but I lost way too much detail and no amount of sharpening and adding frames got me anywhere near the level of detail that @rean has recovered. I have to admit that my mind is kind of blow, even sharpening without denoising first did not get anywhere near the demo video. Impressive!

Probably you asked to create a separate plugin for one of VA feature set? For example a chroma upsample plugin for your NLE?

I did not ask anything.

Just told that commercially it is very hard to sell tool that is AviSynth scripts even if some functions in them are custom compiled code.

I am sure you are good at this things, yet users buy easy to use and learn tool, and this means either easy to install plugin or standalone tool.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev probably because you think I sell "good AviSynth scripts". Or probably you think I sell chroma upsampling tool (because some user before in 2013 opened a discussion where he write that my software is “a chroma upsampling tool”).

These things are not complete true. I sell a video quality that is not possible to get using existing tools. I created a specialized tool that can create this quality. And yes, I use good AviSynth scripts as one of software components. And yes, I can do good upsample, denoise and tons of another useful things. There are many hidden things those make the result be possible. All these things are now placed in one specialized tool - VA.

Probably you asked to create a separate plugin from one of VA feature set? For example a chroma upsample plugin for your NLE?