Up Scaling
-
lister007
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:50 pm
- Location: Great Britain, um the country with the best flag;)
Up Scaling
There are currently upscaling devices on the market to up scale DVD to HD DVD, or at least thats what they claim. I was wondering if anyone 1. new how this works, 2. knows if this is just the same as what we already do now when running a few filters in avisynth, or deinterlacing etc, and if we don't do it already for better picture quality how can we "upscale" on the computer. Is there a filter or a program that will encode and upscale footage for ya? I'm gonna do a bit more research on this my self cos I have a feeling I have the answer already if you know what I mean....but any input would help cheers
Spatchcock..........A dressed and split chicken for roasting or grilling on a spit.
Bring it
Berserk or crazy...??? (image shack sucks will have a banner for this too when it doesn't!)
Bring it
Berserk or crazy...??? (image shack sucks will have a banner for this too when it doesn't!)
-
Orwell
- godx, Son of godix
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:14 am
- Location: Frying Pan. Destination: Fire.
I imagine what it does is turn the footage into vectors and then upscale, then rasterize. I don't see how you can upscale something without a reduction in quality.
Latest
[Kristyrat]: Vote for Orwell
[Kristyrat]: because train conducters are dicks.
Otohiko: whereas Germans are like "god we are all so horrible, we're going to die a pointless death now."
[Kristyrat]: Vote for Orwell
[Kristyrat]: because train conducters are dicks.
Otohiko: whereas Germans are like "god we are all so horrible, we're going to die a pointless death now."
-
Zero1
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:51 pm
- Location: Sheffield, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Upscaling is pretty crappy, since a) it doesn't improve quality and b) requires larger filesizes to encode.
I mean what's the point in making something harder to encode with no actual quality gain? Do you see people upscaling JPG images on a regular basis?
Basically hardly anyone used to upscale, becaus in short it's stupid; until HD became popular. Now it's the buzzword and everyone want's to have "HD" AMVs.
Not only does HD make it harder for people with older PCs to play back (I'm not bitching for myself here, I the equivalent of an A64 6000+), and also wastes bandwith/storage on the org.
Basically the only viable reason to upscale is for standalone devices connected to an LCD screen. You see playback on a PC will rescale whatever it is you are watching to the desktop resolution anyway, so in effect upscaling happens on playback already. The idea of upscaling is to avoid that shitty blocky scaling on LCDs, so you feed an LCD with a good software resized image that is now it's native resolution, as opposed to sending it some 720x480 or whatever and letting the LCD rescale it and look absolutely shitty.
As you said, most DVD players now can upscale to HD, so there again upscaling is non essential. Also think back to when the majority of people used CRT. There was no need for upscaling then because CRT does not suffer the same problems as LCD with regard to displaying a variety of resolutions.
Unless you have a 320x240 video which is so awful you have to upscale and sharpen it to make it semi watchable, I'd advise against it. On top of the wasted space, you also get resizing artifacts like haloing round edges.
I mean what's the point in making something harder to encode with no actual quality gain? Do you see people upscaling JPG images on a regular basis?
Basically hardly anyone used to upscale, becaus in short it's stupid; until HD became popular. Now it's the buzzword and everyone want's to have "HD" AMVs.
Not only does HD make it harder for people with older PCs to play back (I'm not bitching for myself here, I the equivalent of an A64 6000+), and also wastes bandwith/storage on the org.
Basically the only viable reason to upscale is for standalone devices connected to an LCD screen. You see playback on a PC will rescale whatever it is you are watching to the desktop resolution anyway, so in effect upscaling happens on playback already. The idea of upscaling is to avoid that shitty blocky scaling on LCDs, so you feed an LCD with a good software resized image that is now it's native resolution, as opposed to sending it some 720x480 or whatever and letting the LCD rescale it and look absolutely shitty.
As you said, most DVD players now can upscale to HD, so there again upscaling is non essential. Also think back to when the majority of people used CRT. There was no need for upscaling then because CRT does not suffer the same problems as LCD with regard to displaying a variety of resolutions.
Unless you have a 320x240 video which is so awful you have to upscale and sharpen it to make it semi watchable, I'd advise against it. On top of the wasted space, you also get resizing artifacts like haloing round edges.
7-zip // x264 (Sharktooth's builds) // XviD (Koepi's builds) // MP4box (celtic_druid's builds) // Firefox // CCCP
-
ZephyrStar
- Master of Science
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:04 am
- Status: 3D
- Location: The Laboratory
- Contact:
For your original video in standard def, let's say 720x480 16:9 flag, then you only have a specific amount of picture information to work with. Also, the video IS ONLY 720x480, and is stretched by the 16:9 flag. So less space is taken up than if you actually had, say 848x480 video with square pixels, because the 720 is being stretched out upon playback.
If you've blown up your video to a rez like this, already you're taking more space up with the same information. Now if you blew that up to like 720p, you're just stretching the existing pixels over that whole area, working with the same amount of information over almost twice the space. Sure you can sharpen/denoise/filter a bit for a decent result, but it's still a crappy uprez, still makes for a larger file size. And unless you're covering the hell out of the thing with effects, it's still really noticable.
I guess the only reason I'd have for doing something like this is if I wanted omgHD, so I could add effects or stuff to it that ARE at true HD resolution, or so I could maybe use pieces of unstretched video in like a collage inside this size frame...there are some reasons I guess, but meh :/
If you are creating original source footage yourself (animation or hand drawn etc), then there's no reason why you shouldn't do it at 1080p if your machine can handle it. That way, you release an SD version, but you have a nice pretty HD version sitting around for when this kindof thing becomes more mainstream. There's no way I'd NOT create original stuff in HD, because if I'm gonna put that much time and effort into the thing I'm creating, you bet I want to take advantage of that.
(ponders rendering 3d stuff in 4k
)
If you've blown up your video to a rez like this, already you're taking more space up with the same information. Now if you blew that up to like 720p, you're just stretching the existing pixels over that whole area, working with the same amount of information over almost twice the space. Sure you can sharpen/denoise/filter a bit for a decent result, but it's still a crappy uprez, still makes for a larger file size. And unless you're covering the hell out of the thing with effects, it's still really noticable.
I guess the only reason I'd have for doing something like this is if I wanted omgHD, so I could add effects or stuff to it that ARE at true HD resolution, or so I could maybe use pieces of unstretched video in like a collage inside this size frame...there are some reasons I guess, but meh :/
If you are creating original source footage yourself (animation or hand drawn etc), then there's no reason why you shouldn't do it at 1080p if your machine can handle it. That way, you release an SD version, but you have a nice pretty HD version sitting around for when this kindof thing becomes more mainstream. There's no way I'd NOT create original stuff in HD, because if I'm gonna put that much time and effort into the thing I'm creating, you bet I want to take advantage of that.
(ponders rendering 3d stuff in 4k
)