2007-10-08, 01:47 | Link #41 | |||
tsubasa o sagashite
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2007-10-08, 02:10 | Link #42 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 41
|
Quote:
(You people (in general) really do get wrapped around the axle when it comes to "technical reality" vs. "apparent reality" debates, for some reason. ) |
|
2007-10-08, 03:08 | Link #45 | ||||||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
I'm very well aware of the theoretical limits, but there are some clear (also theoretical!) benefits to moderate upscaling, namely that while no "extra" detail e.g. in background animation can be invented, lines and gradients can be sharpened and slimmed, leading to a noticeable increase in visual quality. By interpolating between pixels you basically create "extra line detail" which hasn't been there before, and it works (the same concept is utilized in anti-aliasing scripts. Or are you telling me that this isn't true? If so, please say so. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can't tell at which resolution the original digital footage for Shana S2 was captured. I wasn't standing there when it happened. What I _can_ say is that the 1280x720 raw I took as basis for the release showed a level of detail and line precision which WAY exceeded what we're used to for "normal" SD releases. And yes, it also exceeded Shana S1 DVD. Quote:
Good HD-quality material aired in SD can usually be recovered in a better way with proper upscaling techniques. If the material itself is SD, there's not much point in putting lipstick on a pig. Quote:
|
||||||
2007-10-08, 03:11 | Link #46 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
As I wrote before, visual perception of HD is less linked to background detail, but to lines and contrasts. |
|
2007-10-08, 03:12 | Link #47 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
Or are you just yet another theory rider without practical experience? |
|
2007-10-08, 03:31 | Link #48 | |
Typesetter
Fansubber
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
Quote:
|
|
2007-10-08, 03:55 | Link #49 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
These guesses are usually very similar along lines. Which means that if the level of detail within the low-resolution original is low, interpolating on and on (too much) yields strange-looking color areas where lines are - usually grey with a blurry halo. Ugly. Now if you happen to have a very crisp, clean and well-defined original source (down to many single-pixel parts in the example of the bell staff I linked first), these interpolations can yield very pleasing results to the eye. Also, as I wrote before, in my experience the rule of thumb is ~1.5x as upscale factor before the results become significanty flawed. You don't "recover" information (you can't - you're right there), you interpolate/guess it. And the result is most certainly more pleasing to the eyes. |
|
2007-10-08, 05:06 | Link #51 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
By your definition, if you take a 35mm cinemascope movie or better, an IMAX HD movie, buy the retail dvd, rip it and then use filters to resize it to 1280*720, you get a HD video as a result?
1) source : HD 2) broadcast : SD 2.5) capping : same as broadcast 3) ??? 4) result = profit! err... MHD! |
2007-10-08, 10:00 | Link #53 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
I doubt that their standalones will play 1280x720 h264 mkvs with softsubs, Raist
But fine, you guys can laugh and have your fun all you want. I already said, it's all a hoax by trained monkeys. Strangely, these hoaxes are pretty much liked by the fans. But what do these clueless fan critters know after all... |
2007-10-08, 10:06 | Link #54 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Support the cause! Print this and stick it on your PC screen. |
|
2007-10-08, 10:40 | Link #55 |
Translator, Producer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 44
|
Um, I hate to say this... but I agree with Mentar.
Sort of. Say a show is produced at 1280x720. This means it was "meant" to be viewed at this resolution. The creators intended it this way, adjusted the line thickness/color gradients, etc... But then some silly television executives decided to downscale it and air it at an SD resolution. While simply subbing the SD capture would be fine, I think a proper upscaling (including sharpening) would be able to reproduce the look of the show the creators intended better than the SD resolution would. Sure, you don't get the original high def (guess we'd have to wait for the Blu-ray release for that), but you can present the show in the resolution it was animated for. You can debate whether it's really "HD" or not, fine, but that's just semantics. The simple fact is, it's the closest we can get to the way the anime is supposed to look. You can also debate whether this is simply deluding oneself into a facsimile of higher quality... and maybe you're right about that.
__________________
|
2007-10-08, 10:42 | Link #56 | |
Extremely Lazy Fansubber
Join Date: Mar 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
2007-10-08, 11:02 | Link #58 | |
Translator, Producer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 44
|
Quote:
Since most people watching fansubs don't watch them on upscaling TVs, it's the least we can do as fansubbers to provide the upscaling service for them. <- somewhat tongue in cheek.
__________________
|
|
2007-10-08, 13:14 | Link #59 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
good job defending the term HD everyone. if there's a "standard" worthy of being protected at all, then it is obviously HD in all its glory (full-HD 24p anyone?)
owning a 32"ws TV myself, all I can say is: scaling is everything, HD is nothing. the scaler of my TV is - truth be told - a worthless piece of cake(replace with appropriate term). while todays video-renderers' scalers are far better than my TV's, it is still not the best result you can get. so what I do is upscaling and some supersampled AA(yes, FAKE AA..), sometimes sharpening and/or contrast enhancing via ffdshow/avisynth. easily maxing out every CPU I owned so far (current being a 3800+x2) for plain SD playback. I must be an idiot for wasting all that CPU time for such a neglectible effect, bleh. thanks for making me realise. honestly, if you have a raw which obviously went through some very decent scaling, why scrap it just for the sake of "but, but,... it wasn't aired in HD!11" ?!? if there is anyone here able to produce a better result by upscaling the SD version (or a downscaled version of the raw in general, no need for any disadvantage through xvid reencoding) I will gladly change my opinion. until then I'll just keep the MHD version and tag it accordingly for future reference |
Thread Tools | |
|
|