2007-10-07, 16:28 | Link #21 | |
King of Braves
Fansubber
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto, ON
Age: 45
|
Quote:
By misuing a term, you may be misleading or confusing people. Secondly... if it's not true HD, why release an 'HD' version? It seems like it's just a waste of space and time to keep and transfer it, when the 'SD' version will give you 90%+ of the same thing. Granted, @ enhancing things, but really, aren't you just kinda... fooling with things to kinda 'fix' what isn't broken in the first place? (arguments about whether fansubbing NEEDs HD encodes belong elsewhere) |
|
2007-10-07, 16:32 | Link #23 | ||
tsubasa o sagashite
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, I took your image, loaded it into Photoshop, did a bicubic downsample to 720x480 and then upsampled it back up to 1280x720 and there's almost no difference. http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6826/sdhdur2.png Can you give a better example for me to try out? |
||
2007-10-07, 16:58 | Link #24 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
As for the rest: How about you read what I wrote about the whole "HD" thing before you repeat the questions which have been answered by me more than once? zalas: Sure the Air BluRay set had several true HD parts aswell, but many _many_ sequences were not. It caused alot of frustrated uproar by the fans. And if you reserve the "HD" label to only those shows who are absolutely HD in all steps, not many will warrant this description. |
|
2007-10-07, 17:33 | Link #25 | ||
tsubasa o sagashite
|
Quote:
Now, I give you that if you use a 1280x720 capture/encode of a 720x480 source, you'll often get better image "quality" using the same quality settings. This is why higher image size raws look better than the 720x480 sized ones. However, given a 1280x720 capture of a 720x480 source by some random Japanese guy, who usually don't go as hardcore into encoding as you do, you should be able to squeeze it down to a 720x480 encode with no problems. Try doing an encode at 720x480 and give it as much bitrate or slightly less bitrate as the 1280x720 encode with the same codec. If there are significant differences, then something is wrong with the codec. Quote:
|
||
2007-10-07, 18:03 | Link #26 | ||||||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, there's a limit to how far you can go with this. By rule of thumb, any upscale above factor 1.5 causes this strange look you create when you upscale true SD sources (which are effectively even _lower_ in resolution due to the generally lossy capture, and then often halo-inducing postprocessing). Here, on the other hand, we have a source which captures most of the visual quality of the original. And I believe that you will agree that the impression of the mkv and avi are _significantly_ different. Right? Quote:
Quote:
Are we agreed that generally we have the 4 quality levels I outlined above? 1) Mastering HD - Airing HD 2) Mastering HD - Airing SD 3) Mastering SD - Airing HD 4) Mastering SD - Airing SD In this order. For encoder eyes, there's a noticeable step between 3 and 4 (most of the clean fansub encoding raws chosen for SD shows are picked from 3). There is a VERY significant step between 2 and 3, and personally, I'm inclined to start pointing out shows from level 2. If I had known how much time I've wasted here, I'd have said "Hi Quality" and bingo. It's not in the filename either. Here you can first create a genuine "wow" effect visually. And only a minimal amount of shows are really level 1. So how would YOU distinguish between the levels? If at all? |
||||||
2007-10-07, 18:22 | Link #27 |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 37
|
Jesus, some of you people...
USE YOUR EYES if they still haven't fallen out from years of reading fansub drama on forums. As requested though, FUN WITH PICTURES - all from (one of) the raw(s) so you won't get to have fun questioning Mentar's filtering choices: Originals: 1 2 3 bicubicresize(852,480).bicubicresize(1280,720) (because only *bleep* use image manipulation programs for image manipulation): 1 2 3 I also took the liberty of doing your eyes' job for you: subtract(last, bicubicresize(852,480).bicubicresize(1280,720)): 1 2 3 DOES NOT AIR IN HD my ass. Look at the station logo and the sponsor logos and then come back and say that again.
__________________
Last edited by monir; 2007-10-07 at 18:42. Reason: rudeness doesn't win argument! |
2007-10-07, 18:42 | Link #28 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 38
|
Why is it so important to you that we have more shows to call 'HD'? I think you're just fooling a lot more leechers into thinking that your subs are the real deal. It's completely reasonable to expect them to believe you, since the average leecher only needs to look at the video resolution to declare it a "true HD experience".
In this manner you're just pandering to leechers' illusion that more and more anime they get are HD. That isn't to say their numbers aren't growing (Jushin Enbu and Gundam 00 are perfect examples of HD-produced-aired-captured anime of this season), but as you say they're in minority and will continue to be for some time, one of the reasons being they're more expensive to produce. However, these days leechers expect a high resolution version of any show that airs. The whiners are extremely annoying out of no good reason. Recently I've worked on Nodame Cantabile and Sumomomomomo. Guess what? The raws were all MentarHD, not true HD, and we got a bunch of leechers whining because, well, we didn't distribute upscales. Now whose fault will that be next time? Or should all groups start releasing MHD? |
2007-10-07, 18:51 | Link #29 | |
tsubasa o sagashite
|
Here are the three original images downsampled to 720x480 using a 3-lobed Lanczos filter and then upsampled to 1280x720 using the same:
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7...sized01ul2.png http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7...sized02ox8.png http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7...sized03wu3.png The only real differences I see are in the credits. And yes, I used Photoshop last time because it was convenient. These downsamples and upsamples are done with in-house software for image manipulation that my graphics research lab maintains. Quote:
1. you capture losslessly (lossy captures are obviously the norm, but the lossless image quality is the upper bound) and your resampling is done ideally (most resampling is non-ideal, but a Lanczos filter gives very close results) 2. the station doesn't add any HD stuff like sponsor logos (which often change between episodes and between stations) You see sometimes that 3) is better looking than 4), and that is primarily due to the fact that most cappers in Japan don't know how to encode properly and that fixed macroblock sizes obviously favor larger image sizes. Any differences between 2), 3) and 4) are miniscule compared to the difference between 1) and the rest. |
|
2007-10-07, 18:52 | Link #30 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, your definition of HD is only one of several, it's not "the" real one. It's a logical and consequential one - and one which doesn't help the majority of anime watchers at all. Quote:
What's your solution? Pretend they don't exist and hiss at those who disagree? |
|||
2007-10-07, 19:05 | Link #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 38
|
Like I said before, you can do the same with SD sources! You could upscale all your DVD rips to make them look better. Heck, you could upscale to ZOMG so you'll be able to see the edges of every pixel!! But why isn't anyone doing that? It's pointless for such small 'impression' gains.
|
2007-10-07, 19:10 | Link #32 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
*chuckles amusedly* Oh, and just FYI: Actually it's becoming more and more prevalent to release DVDs mildly upscaled (which I don't, but for different reasons). |
|
2007-10-07, 19:19 | Link #34 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
|
Quote:
First screenshot is the unmodified 1280x720. Second screenshot has been downscaled to 704x396 and then upscaled to 1280x720, thus losing any extra detail that would have resulted from the higher resolution. You can see a little detail is lost on the bottle labels and couch buttons, however the majority of the sharpness retained at the expense of a little warping. Avisynth to generate the second image: Spline36Resize(704,396) Lanczos4Resize(1280,720) aWarpSharp(10,1,.5) Now, looking at the credits alone (see TheFluff's post) you can definitely tell this is at least airing at HD resolutions. While watching it, I didn't notice a whole lot of detail that made me think the source master was HD. Because there are decent methods for upscaling, I general consider HD 'good' when there are extra details as opposed to just being sharp. As for whether it is worth releasing a fansub in HD with such a source, I could go either way. Note: I did create an upscale of the original image I'm quoting but the png is 2.7mb and I can't find a place to upload it. X_X |
|
2007-10-07, 19:24 | Link #35 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Compatibility encode. Since we always release 2 versions, we need one for the small computers and standalones. 704x400 (or 396 if you stick with ASP codecs) is a proven size for that.
By the way: Check the Kimikiss raws, from MBS. There's even a 1280x720 version out. Would you say that this is the same kind of upscale like the Shana ones? If not, what's the difference? After all, according to your theory, they're all SD? Off to bed now, will continue this tomorrow. |
2007-10-07, 19:36 | Link #36 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Whoops, I missed a posting
Quote:
I just can't believe that you are really so blind. Why do you argue against the visible and obvious so much? I don't understand it. Quote:
|
||
2007-10-07, 22:20 | Link #37 | |
King of Braves
Fansubber
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto, ON
Age: 45
|
Quote:
That said, I don't think anyone is challenging your skills as an encoder, rather the disingenuous way that things are being labeled. |
|
2007-10-07, 22:35 | Link #38 |
King of Hosers
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
|
Yes clearly there is a difference between shows mastered in HD to those not. I am pretty sure no one but GUTB himself would claim otherwise :3. Personally I myself wouldn't take a show which was mastered in HD, but aired as SD, and use HD resolutions. Why? It is an illusion of what it truly is...a fake. Why not just wait till the actual HD broadcast is out to use HD resolutions? It would make sense, you get the full quality "High Definition experience" then.
If I recall correctly Shana is unfortunately on this horrible fucking "we do the real HD broadcasts 3 weeks later" thing right? So just do the SD releases for now... Why even bother to put out lower quality releases labeled as "HD" now when you could use the better stuff in a few weeks. Which I would assume you plan to do? Keep SD broadcasts as SD. Prease ;-;. Don't waste time on using high resolutions just because the source really is high definition. Use high resolutions when the broadcast is the same. If there were never going to be HD broadcasts of a show I could see how doing a high resolution encode might be warranted. But personally I still see it as a waste, since it's just an illusion of the quality that could be. Of which I assume is the important part here, quarlity . [This paragraph is for young encoders, if anyone.] Within my own lexicon...I only refer to a show as HD when it is mastered in HD. And I only refer to a raw/capture as HD when both the show is mastered in HD and the broadcast is HD. Anything else using those resolutions, to me, are just high resolution/upscale encodes, but not HD. If the broadcast doesn't match the source...no reason to muck up a confusion by calling it HD in my opinion. This sort of thinking could be used just as well on SD broadcast as HD. They are simply high resolution/upscale encodes, not HD. Which I think is why everyone is jumping on you Mentar. Just because the source really is HD, does the final encode (which was taken from an SD broadcast) really warrant high resolutions? |
2007-10-08, 00:52 | Link #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
You too, Nich?
To make it short and sweet, you remember wrong. The show you're referring to is Clannad, not Shana. I can't believe that even YOU join this nonsense chorus. You honestly think I can't tell a SD show from a HD show, old buddy? Wow, thanks, very flattering. Numberofpeoplewhocommentwithouthavingbotheredtoloo k += 1; *shrugs and moves on* Minna, gomen nasai for the confusion. Of course, the release is only SD, but I've rented some trained monkeys to vector and manually repaint all the new parts. Then, I've encoded it at higher res and bitrate to waste precious resources from poor anime fools I managed to mislead with my irresponsible promotional campaign, which is now putting such a unduly pressure on all those brave encoders who deny their fans hi-quality hi-res releases because their dogma says it just CAN'T look better. All those suckers who were goaded into it - had they only stuck with the xvid, they would have had the same quality, but at lower filesize... it's a shame really. Oh, and all those people in the channel and on the boards who said "whoa, looking amazing, so much better" were of course paid by me, of course. I rest my case |
2007-10-08, 01:26 | Link #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
|
I'm probably in the minority in that I watch everything on my LCD TV. It's 720p, which means that anything lower gets upscaled. And frankly, I'd rather trust an experienced encoder to upscale an SD source rather than me fiddle with ffdshow settings or worse, have my TV do it for me, as only the expensive sets have upscaler chipsets worth talking about.
|
|
|