|
|
Posted by Specs on 10/05/12 11:38
One has to remember information is stored temporally and as such information
can be rebuilt by using the data that is stored between frames/fields. When
up-rezzing video for film its not simply a case of resizing and
anti-aliasing the jaggies like it is in the cheap and chearful DVD players.
I bristle too!
If one looks at discrete frames then the information does not appear to be
there but by analysing the differences between subsequent frames/fields
additional information can be reconstrcted and then used in the resize
algorithm to yield greater detail in the film blow up. There is a lot of
information stored in a 60i or 50i video stream that is not simply
disregarded when going to 24p and one can reasonably expect better than S16
quality when blowing SD video up to 35mm. I'm not convinced its a doubling
of resolution from 500 lines to 1000 though.
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:IPKdncJTsudTU0HeRVn-qA@adelphia.com...
> 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]
|