Uprezzed?

Barend Onneweer · August 8th, 2004, 02:11 PM

Uhm... did anyone say that?

Bar3nd

Graeme Nattress · August 8th, 2004, 02:50 PM

I said that - I think I can do a pretty darn good job of it once my scaling algorithm is working properly. (probably about 1 year's R&D away) I can already turn 4:1:1 DV into a pretty good facsimile of the original 4:4:4, which is the first step along the way of scaling DV to HD... OK - it will never be as good as shooting HD, but the better I can get it.....

Graeme

Graeme Nattress · August 23rd, 2004, 06:56 AM

I've been doing some more work on the algorithm I was talking about earlier in this thread. Please don't get too excited as I'm still along way off a usable product, but I thought you'd like to see how it's progressing:

http://www.nattress.com/magic.htm

Comments (both positive and negative) are appreciated.

Graeme

A.D.Wyatt Norton · April 11th, 2008, 03:26 PM

I look forward, Mr. Nattress, to your results.

I also would like clarification on the use of Shake, though just finding the reference will make me research this question at Apple. The only thing I can add besides questions is the mentioned use of Photoshop. There is an excellent 'format' used for fractal image growth called GF Print Pro, now on version 5. While not as perfect as capturing the image at the resolution you would like originally, it's quite good. Designed for print media, it works with both RGB and CMYK. The extreme downside is the fact that even with macro automation, you're talking about frame by frame.

One note: What drew me to this thread was that I have EXISTING footage of a subject who is dead. I need to incorporate it with HD footage. Between the footage being shot and now, there have been a few changes in DV reality- What we now call High Definition becoming more common than Standard Definition. Many of the posts in this thread seem to be smugly declaring that shooting HD to start with keeps one from being an idiot.

Does anyone really believe that what we now know as HD will not be supplanted by higher resolution cameras, indeed, by 3-D, tank 3-D and even cameras shooting for hologram projection stages? Do you even today want to compare the highest DV HD with kodachrome? How about 4X5 kodachrome? It makes IMAX seem small. I do doubt, though, that anyone could think of a reason to transport 4X5 film for motion pictures.

Jeez, what a strange rant. Anyway, I'm looking, as the originator of this thread was, for a good way to upres.

A.D.Wyatt Norton · April 11th, 2008, 04:34 PM

Has anyone used this? I am fond of their Magic Bullet Editors and Look Suite, myself.

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthd.html

August 8th, 2004, 02:11 PM	#46
Barend Onneweer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Netherlands Posts: 111	Uhm... did anyone say that? Bar3nd __________________ www.raamw3rk.net digital storytelling and vfx

August 8th, 2004, 02:50 PM	#47
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	I said that - I think I can do a pretty darn good job of it once my scaling algorithm is working properly. (probably about 1 year's R&D away) I can already turn 4:1:1 DV into a pretty good facsimile of the original 4:4:4, which is the first step along the way of scaling DV to HD... OK - it will never be as good as shooting HD, but the better I can get it..... Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

August 23rd, 2004, 06:56 AM	#48
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Uprezzing - some new test images I've been doing some more work on the algorithm I was talking about earlier in this thread. Please don't get too excited as I'm still along way off a usable product, but I thought you'd like to see how it's progressing: http://www.nattress.com/magic.htm Comments (both positive and negative) are appreciated. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

April 11th, 2008, 03:26 PM	#49
A.D.Wyatt Norton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 27	I look forward, Mr. Nattress, to your results. I also would like clarification on the use of Shake, though just finding the reference will make me research this question at Apple. The only thing I can add besides questions is the mentioned use of Photoshop. There is an excellent 'format' used for fractal image growth called GF Print Pro, now on version 5. While not as perfect as capturing the image at the resolution you would like originally, it's quite good. Designed for print media, it works with both RGB and CMYK. The extreme downside is the fact that even with macro automation, you're talking about frame by frame. One note: What drew me to this thread was that I have EXISTING footage of a subject who is dead. I need to incorporate it with HD footage. Between the footage being shot and now, there have been a few changes in DV reality- What we now call High Definition becoming more common than Standard Definition. Many of the posts in this thread seem to be smugly declaring that shooting HD to start with keeps one from being an idiot. Does anyone really believe that what we now know as HD will not be supplanted by higher resolution cameras, indeed, by 3-D, tank 3-D and even cameras shooting for hologram projection stages? Do you even today want to compare the highest DV HD with kodachrome? How about 4X5 kodachrome? It makes IMAX seem small. I do doubt, though, that anyone could think of a reason to transport 4X5 film for motion pictures. Jeez, what a strange rant. Anyway, I'm looking, as the originator of this thread was, for a good way to upres. __________________ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. Last edited by A.D.Wyatt Norton; April 11th, 2008 at 04:37 PM.

April 11th, 2008, 04:34 PM	#50
A.D.Wyatt Norton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 27	Has anyone used this? I am fond of their Magic Bullet Editors and Look Suite, myself. http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthd.html __________________ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.