Algolith vs Vegas 6b comparison shots at DVinfo.net

Simon Wyndham · May 22nd, 2005, 12:06 PM

For those wanting to see how well Algolith upconverts SD DV25 footage to HD resolution I've set up a page for it here;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algoli...comparison.htm

720p is really the best resolution to use, especially for PAL footage as the increase in size isn't too different. But I pushed these grabs to 1080p just to see what they are like.

Emre Safak · May 22nd, 2005, 12:42 PM

Well...Vegas looks better, sharper to me.

Graeme Nattress · May 22nd, 2005, 01:01 PM

Vegas also looks more aliassed. Algolith, on the whole, is doing a better job, it's smoother, but there's less nasties on edges. Look at the reflection on the side of the spectacles in one shot - a lot smoother on algolith.

Graeme

Simon Wyndham · May 22nd, 2005, 01:02 PM

Emre, Hmm. I thought they were around the same sharpness, but with diagonal lines being much smoother with Algolith.

However there is something else to bare in mind. I used the default settings for Algolith, but you can compensate by increasing sharpness. I didn't play around with those settings as I detest artificial edge enhancement.

Glenn Chan · May 22nd, 2005, 02:47 PM

To me: Vegas looked slightly sharper on the skin detail for the first picture. It's subtle though.

After reading Graeme's post, I now took a look at the second picture and notice the aliasing.

I'd probably be happy with either.

2- It looks like the aspect ratio is a little different between the two (i.e. look at the black bars on top and bottom). DV has a really weird pixel aspect ratio (~0.9091). How the programs handle it may explain the difference?

Simon Wyndham · May 22nd, 2005, 03:23 PM

One of the big differences is in edges. For example if I was to shoot tree leaves against the sky in sharp focus the Algolith filter comes into its own as it gets rid of mosquito noise around edges. Such things are very apparent on a projected screen.

Regarding the aspect ratio, you are correct. I hadn't quite got the hang of it as you need to set up the aspect ratios within After Effects so that Algolith is doing all the work rather than AE. PAL DV has a different aspect than NTSC, and it was made more complicated by the fact that my footage was anamorphic 16:9.

When Algolith release their stand alone conversion software I will be trying that too as it shouldn't suffer from any setup problems.

Emre Safak · May 23rd, 2005, 01:09 PM

You are right about the reduced aliasing and mosquito noise, but overally I think the difference is not significant to me.

Simon Wyndham · May 23rd, 2005, 02:44 PM

The most important thing about the Algolith filter is the mosquito noise reduction. Mosquito noise around edges is one of the give aways of DV25. Reducing this noise on your material will mean that you can output to Digibeta more effectively for a master. It would also be useful for DVD encoding as it means that the MPEG compression won't be adding more mosquito noise on top of noise that is already there.

On a larger screen the aliasing would make a difference. It all depends on how critical the picture quality has to be.

Laurence Kingston · May 23rd, 2005, 08:11 PM

I hate to admit I simply can't see the difference. Both impress me quite a bit though.

After looking at those examples, I tried resizing some of my own NTSC VX2000 video with Vegas 6. While it doesn't look as good as your efforts, it does look better than I would have expected, and definately better than Vegas 5 or before would have. I knew that Sony had done some work with the frame rate conversion algorythms, but I hadn't realized that uprezzing was improved as well.

Simon Wyndham · May 24th, 2005, 03:46 AM

720p I find is the best resolution to convert to. I'll also have to get a close up of someone with flowing hair and increase the DOF. With the images I tested I was using ND and had the iris opened to f1.7. So on that first image for example her hair is not generally in the focus range.

720p is a nice res to convert from 16:9 PAL. An unsqueesed PAL 16:9 image is 1048x576 compared to 1280x720. Not a huge difference at all if the originating footage is sharp and noise free to begin with.

Dennis Vogel · May 26th, 2005, 08:30 PM

I, too, think they both look pretty much the same. On the first picture, however, I like the Vegas shot better. Look at the white piping on the girl's shirt. In the Vegas shot you can see the fuzzy fabric. On the other, it's not as well defined. Both are very nice, as someone mentioned.

Good luck.

Dennis

May 22nd, 2005, 12:06 PM	#1
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Algolith vs Vegas 6b comparison shots For those wanting to see how well Algolith upconverts SD DV25 footage to HD resolution I've set up a page for it here; http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algoli...comparison.htm 720p is really the best resolution to use, especially for PAL footage as the increase in size isn't too different. But I pushed these grabs to 1080p just to see what they are like.

May 22nd, 2005, 01:01 PM	#3
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Vegas also looks more aliassed. Algolith, on the whole, is doing a better job, it's smoother, but there's less nasties on edges. Look at the reflection on the side of the spectacles in one shot - a lot smoother on algolith. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

May 22nd, 2005, 01:02 PM	#4
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Emre, Hmm. I thought they were around the same sharpness, but with diagonal lines being much smoother with Algolith. However there is something else to bare in mind. I used the default settings for Algolith, but you can compensate by increasing sharpness. I didn't play around with those settings as I detest artificial edge enhancement. Last edited by Simon Wyndham; May 22nd, 2005 at 01:25 PM.

May 22nd, 2005, 12:42 PM	#2
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	Well...Vegas looks better, sharper to me.

May 22nd, 2005, 02:47 PM	#5
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	To me: Vegas looked slightly sharper on the skin detail for the first picture. It's subtle though. After reading Graeme's post, I now took a look at the second picture and notice the aliasing. I'd probably be happy with either. 2- It looks like the aspect ratio is a little different between the two (i.e. look at the black bars on top and bottom). DV has a really weird pixel aspect ratio (~0.9091). How the programs handle it may explain the difference?

May 22nd, 2005, 03:23 PM	#6
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	One of the big differences is in edges. For example if I was to shoot tree leaves against the sky in sharp focus the Algolith filter comes into its own as it gets rid of mosquito noise around edges. Such things are very apparent on a projected screen. Regarding the aspect ratio, you are correct. I hadn't quite got the hang of it as you need to set up the aspect ratios within After Effects so that Algolith is doing all the work rather than AE. PAL DV has a different aspect than NTSC, and it was made more complicated by the fact that my footage was anamorphic 16:9. When Algolith release their stand alone conversion software I will be trying that too as it shouldn't suffer from any setup problems.

May 23rd, 2005, 01:09 PM	#7
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	You are right about the reduced aliasing and mosquito noise, but overally I think the difference is not significant to me.

May 23rd, 2005, 02:44 PM	#8
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	The most important thing about the Algolith filter is the mosquito noise reduction. Mosquito noise around edges is one of the give aways of DV25. Reducing this noise on your material will mean that you can output to Digibeta more effectively for a master. It would also be useful for DVD encoding as it means that the MPEG compression won't be adding more mosquito noise on top of noise that is already there. On a larger screen the aliasing would make a difference. It all depends on how critical the picture quality has to be.

May 23rd, 2005, 08:11 PM	#9
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	I hate to admit I simply can't see the difference. Both impress me quite a bit though. After looking at those examples, I tried resizing some of my own NTSC VX2000 video with Vegas 6. While it doesn't look as good as your efforts, it does look better than I would have expected, and definately better than Vegas 5 or before would have. I knew that Sony had done some work with the frame rate conversion algorythms, but I hadn't realized that uprezzing was improved as well.

May 24th, 2005, 03:46 AM	#10
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	720p I find is the best resolution to convert to. I'll also have to get a close up of someone with flowing hair and increase the DOF. With the images I tested I was using ND and had the iris opened to f1.7. So on that first image for example her hair is not generally in the focus range. 720p is a nice res to convert from 16:9 PAL. An unsqueesed PAL 16:9 image is 1048x576 compared to 1280x720. Not a huge difference at all if the originating footage is sharp and noise free to begin with.

May 26th, 2005, 08:30 PM	#11
Dennis Vogel Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 409	I, too, think they both look pretty much the same. On the first picture, however, I like the Vegas shot better. Look at the white piping on the girl's shirt. In the Vegas shot you can see the fuzzy fabric. On the other, it's not as well defined. Both are very nice, as someone mentioned. Good luck. Dennis