|
|
Posted by doc on 01/31/06 15:04
this sounds very logical. if the material isn't there to begin with, then
it can't be had by upsizing, up-rezzing, or up anything other than making
the picture bigger. but in the end, it's the same that one started with.
that's logical in my digital book.
drd
"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]
|