|
|
Posted by Smarty on 10/05/34 11:38
Exactly! I think the industry use of the word "resolution" is unfortunate in
the semantic sense however, because it inaccurately conveys the impression
that the ability to resolve more information is achieved. To astronomers,
physicists, or optometrists, the resolving power of the eye to see more
detail is not benefited by such ("double the vertical resolution") methods.
When interpolation or other smoothing and filtering is done to create the
impression of an improved picture, the "apparent" resolution is, at best, a
visual deception, taking advantage of perceptual (as opposed to physical)
phenomena. Frank used the phrase "display/presentation frame size" in a
another recent HDV thread to refer to the specification which actually ***
is**** being (in this case) doubled, and you really have an equal or
***lesser*** resolution image being represented in a display/presentation
frame which has twice the number of vertical lines.
I tend to bristle at this marketing confusion a bit since there are numerous
(successful) attempts to sell "up-converted" or "up-rezzed" DVD players,
projectors, etc. which make claims to improving resolution, turning SD into
HD, etc. None of them achieves an increase in resolution! They increase the
frame size, implying that their resolution is increasing, but it isn't.
All of them ultimately cannot and do not increase the resolution, no more
than taking an mp3 audio signal and "up-converting it" to a higher bit rate.
Smarty
"Martin Heffels" <mitch.mcNeilljn@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:f04pt197hl3unin8m11jmvabtkkth8panm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:11:48 -0500, "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>I fail to understand how uprezzing / clever mathematics can increase the
>>resolution of a lower data rate / lower resolution signal. Doubling the
>>number of lines doesn't truly "resolve" any more detail, and the inherent
>>resolution of the originally sampled signal at the sampling rate it was
>>captured is the highest "resolution" achievable. Schemes developed by Yves
>>Faroudja and others (like DCD) can reduce jaggies or other artifacts, but
>>this is not in any way an increase in resolution.
>
> Companies like Du-Art in the US have developed proprietary software which
> they use to double the vertical resolution (I should have said that), to
> make a SD-based image look better when blown-up to 35mm. What it does is
> that it recreates the intermediate lines, based on the pixelsof the lines
> next to it. Of course this is not really going back to what it was (which
> is impossible after throwing away a lot of the information), but a pretty
> good approach, and makes a blow-up to 35mm look much better (from 500+
> lines to 1000+ lines)
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Never be afraid to try something new.
> Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark.
> A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|