New Hi-Def DVX100 clip

Barry Green · December 10th, 2003, 11:00 PM

PAL gives you 20% more pixels to work with. Also, it's 4:2:0 color sampling may or may not provide superior uprezzing. I would suspect that it might, but without a comparable PAL clip to test with, there's no way to know for sure.

But with a PAL camera you also give up the 24P frame rate (although 25P is not far off) and you also lose the 30P frame rate for slow motion.

If you're in PAL territory, sure, try it -- but I wouldn't get a PAL camera in NTSC territory just for this...

Glenn Gipson · December 12th, 2003, 02:53 PM

Hey Barry, in your opinion, would 1920x1080 be way too much uprez using S-Spline with the DVX100?

Barry Green · December 12th, 2003, 09:38 PM

I dunno, let's try it!

here's the clip upsampled to 1920 x 1080, then saved out as a MainConcept MPG2 from Vegas:

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVX-1080.mpg

Barry Green · December 12th, 2003, 10:56 PM

Okay, just for grins, here's the JVC upsampled to 1080/30P:

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/JVC-1080.mpg

Glenn Gipson · December 13th, 2003, 02:28 PM

Wow, that's not TOO bad. The image definately shows more degredation, but it doesn't look as bad as I suspected it might. I couldn't play the JVC stuff...but maybe it's because I need to "Save Target As" Let me try....

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/JVC-1080.mpg

Glenn Gipson · December 13th, 2003, 02:30 PM

Yeah, that worked....resolution wise, the JVC uprezzes up to 1080 better then the DVX, but that is to be expected. Thanks Barry!

Slav Vaskevich · February 5th, 2004, 05:21 PM

To be honest with you guys, I don't see the S-Spline doing much in pixel interpolation. Bicubic up sampling in Photoshop & AfterFX are almost the same. I don't think S-Spline worth rendering time for a 5% difference. See http://slav.1accesshost.com/

It's much easier and much faster to do it in AE.

Slav.

Stephen van Vuuren · February 5th, 2004, 06:39 PM

I don't know - when I tested it I got much better results - hardly 5%. Even your test shots, S-Spline looks like it doing noticeably better than bicubic and unsharp mask.

Slav Vaskevich · February 5th, 2004, 06:48 PM

Yes, it's a LITTLE better, but viewing the result even on a large screen results in virtually no difference and the process of processing a large amount of targa files makes it unreasonable in real life situation. So, I guess the answer is it's ok for a test or two...

Stephen van Vuuren · February 5th, 2004, 07:18 PM

Well, it probably is like most visual things - it's a "depends" things. It depends on the eye and expectations of the user and the depends also on the file contents and uprez ratio.

If it did not work for some people in some situations, it would not last long as a product.

Charles Papert · February 5th, 2004, 07:22 PM

You guys are doing cool stuff! Any chance of seeing the standard rez DVX footage inserted into that sequence so we can see the "before and after"?

February 5th, 2004, 05:21 PM	#22
Slav Vaskevich Tourist Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Worcester, MA Posts: 2	S-Spline To be honest with you guys, I don't see the S-Spline doing much in pixel interpolation. Bicubic up sampling in Photoshop & AfterFX are almost the same. I don't think S-Spline worth rendering time for a 5% difference. See http://slav.1accesshost.com/ It's much easier and much faster to do it in AE. Slav.

February 5th, 2004, 06:39 PM	#23
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	I don't know - when I tested it I got much better results - hardly 5%. Even your test shots, S-Spline looks like it doing noticeably better than bicubic and unsharp mask. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

February 5th, 2004, 07:18 PM	#25
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Well, it probably is like most visual things - it's a "depends" things. It depends on the eye and expectations of the user and the depends also on the file contents and uprez ratio. If it did not work for some people in some situations, it would not last long as a product. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

February 5th, 2004, 07:22 PM	#26
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	You guys are doing cool stuff! Any chance of seeing the standard rez DVX footage inserted into that sequence so we can see the "before and after"? __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 10th, 2003, 11:00 PM	#16
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	PAL gives you 20% more pixels to work with. Also, it's 4:2:0 color sampling may or may not provide superior uprezzing. I would suspect that it might, but without a comparable PAL clip to test with, there's no way to know for sure. But with a PAL camera you also give up the 24P frame rate (although 25P is not far off) and you also lose the 30P frame rate for slow motion. If you're in PAL territory, sure, try it -- but I wouldn't get a PAL camera in NTSC territory just for this...

December 12th, 2003, 02:53 PM	#17
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Hey Barry, in your opinion, would 1920x1080 be way too much uprez using S-Spline with the DVX100?

December 12th, 2003, 09:38 PM	#18
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I dunno, let's try it! here's the clip upsampled to 1920 x 1080, then saved out as a MainConcept MPG2 from Vegas: http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVX-1080.mpg

December 12th, 2003, 10:56 PM	#19
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Okay, just for grins, here's the JVC upsampled to 1080/30P: http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/JVC-1080.mpg

December 13th, 2003, 02:28 PM	#20
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Wow, that's not TOO bad. The image definately shows more degredation, but it doesn't look as bad as I suspected it might. I couldn't play the JVC stuff...but maybe it's because I need to "Save Target As" Let me try.... http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/JVC-1080.mpg

December 13th, 2003, 02:30 PM	#21
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Yeah, that worked....resolution wise, the JVC uprezzes up to 1080 better then the DVX, but that is to be expected. Thanks Barry!

February 5th, 2004, 06:48 PM	#24
Slav Vaskevich Tourist Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Worcester, MA Posts: 2	Yes, it's a LITTLE better, but viewing the result even on a large screen results in virtually no difference and the process of processing a large amount of targa files makes it unreasonable in real life situation. So, I guess the answer is it's ok for a test or two...