• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • TV and Home Entertainment Technology
HD UpScalers
<<
<
3 of 3
>>
>
GDK
12-11-2007
Originally Posted by JimRockford:
“Actually, they are experimenting with this very thing at the moment. Because the Next Generation only exists on tapes. It was made in an era where they transfered the film to tape and post produced the show digitally, before archiving it off onto Betacam. There are no film masters of the completed series, unlike the original Star Trek. The days will come eventually when they release upscaled SD stuff on Blu-ray or HD-DVD, (stuff that doesn't exist on film) that has been professionally upscaled and people will be surprised at the quality.

I don't think anybody is arguing that upscaled SD is a 1:1 match for true HD, it's going to lack some fine detail. But anybody that dismisses what *can* be achieved through professional upscaling (and you can achieve at least halfway house with good material) is frankly misinformed. Also, there's a lot more to picture quality than just resolution.

Oh and SKY HD is not a good way to judge things. ”

I never said it was.

I know ST:TNG doesn't exist in completed form on film. I had hoped the original footage has been preserved somewhere. If the footage does exist, in principle, all the live action footage could be scanned at high resolution. The sfx and all the other remaining post-production work could then be re-done with modern digital techniques.
LCDMAN
13-11-2007
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“But it's trying to produce fine detail, which isn't there - so it can only be a guess. In any case, the results of Broadcasters upscaling, DVD upscaling, or TV upscaling, all bear no resemblance at all to an HD picture.”


Really? see;

http://www.hqv.com/technology/index1...TOKEN=69432537

http://www.hqv.com/technology/index1...TOKEN=69432537

http://www.siliconoptix.com/contentE...caling_jed.pdf


LCDMAN..............Damn, just couldn't keep away!
Chorley Matt
15-11-2007
Originally Posted by LCDMAN:
“Really? see;

http://www.hqv.com/technology/index1...TOKEN=69432537

http://www.hqv.com/technology/index1...TOKEN=69432537

http://www.siliconoptix.com/contentE...caling_jed.pdf


LCDMAN..............Damn, just couldn't keep away!”

Hmmm, really yourself sunshine. And those first two links weren't possibly from a company trying to sell something? Possibly even something YOU re-sell in a high end domestic unit?? Any amount of marketing spin doesn't cover up the fact you cannot 100% accurately produce new information that WAS NOT in the original source material.

Say I film something in Hi-Def 1080i (which I do) then post it in crappyvision YouTube quality (which I don't!), you're basically saying you can magically turn it into a fully refurbished, absolutely no quality lost, Hi-Def 1080i signal again? Exactly, pixel for pixel, perfect to my original master tape? Nah
jase1
20-11-2007
This one still going then? Incredible...

You cannot generate information that does not exist. Period.

Interpolation is by definition guesswork.

If you can make SD into HD, then by extension you can make HD into UHD, and hence because the SD is now HD, SD can be made into UHD, no?

How many times can this be achieved? If I give you a 20x20 image can you turn that into HD as well?

If not, then it is MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN that SD cannot be perfectly converted to HD.
JimRockford
24-11-2007
Quote:
“You cannot generate information that does not exist. Period.”

Wrong.

Here's an example of non realtime computer software before and after having generated added detail into an SD image:

Before

After
LCDMAN
25-11-2007
Jim, we are wasting our time and typing effort. They cannot grasp the point that you can re-create information that did once exist but has been lost due to the processes the image has undergone. Of course, it's just guesswork

LCDMAN..........Still inviting the non-believers to come see for themselves - pm me!!!
ALanJ
25-11-2007
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“...presumably broadcasters would have access to the degree of technology required?, yet they don't appear to use it?.”

I can only assume that after the upconversion the MPEG4 transmission path screws things up

All I can say is that as an owner of one of LCDMAN's nice boxes that the picture quality on my 50" plasma is superb.

The quality of shows like CSI Miami etc on five where the broadcaster still gives the SD picture a reasonable bandwidth is outstanding. I can only just see the difference between it and an HD picture in the extremly fine detail - especially in the aerial shots of the Miami sky line. But still an awsome picture.

I wouldn't call in HD as there is still an interpreted elements but that is a symantic issue and one could argue that a show or film made in HD is then compressed in a lossy manner and that these boxes re-create the HD original from that lossy compressed version.

I would still argue that although I could see the viewpoint above my expetiments to date with such a scalar tell me two things - (1) there are things that can't be put back [though I have not compared with the HD original as yet] (2) I want a native 1080p screen as the 1280x768 one I have at the moment has to be the constraining factor .
ALanJ
25-11-2007
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“I don't care if the SD source is totally uncompressed, it still hasn't got the definition required for HD - and you can't accurately recreate something that has never existed.”

Because of the level of comtpression in the transmission chain most of which these days is lossy you could say that if the source was film of HD that the conversion to SD is a "lossy" compression and so a scalar could convert this back to HD in the same way a MPEG2 or MPEG4 datastream is decompressed.

Of course I don't know the maths and haven't seen anything do this but I have seen some outstanding scalar technology over the years.
ejstubbs
28-11-2007
Originally Posted by LCDMAN:
“...you can re-create information that did once exist but has been lost due to the processes the image has undergone.”

You may be able to create new information to replace information lost through intermediate processes but there is absolutely no way that you can guarantee that the new information is the same as the information that has been lost. Can't be done. The resulting picture may indeed look great but only by luck will it ever be pixel-by-pixel 100% identical to an HD original.
JimRockford
05-12-2007
Originally Posted by ejstubbs:
“You may be able to create new information to replace information lost through intermediate processes but there is absolutely no way that you can guarantee that the new information is the same as the information that has been lost. Can't be done. The resulting picture may indeed look great but only by luck will it ever be pixel-by-pixel 100% identical to an HD original.”

Well that goes without saying. Any processing is open to errors.
GDK
05-12-2007
That makes some sense. You're not trying to mathematically create detail that was never there from the original SD picture. Essentially, you're inventing some suitable looking detail and merging it with the mathematically upscaled SD source to get something that looks like true HD and that is based on the SD source.

Do I understand the process correctly?
<<
<
3 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map