Upconverting DVD to HD
-
Hi there was someone who uploaded videos like this torrent
https://www.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=c1c9a8207cbc1ef06ca7cba6aabba0fef7ed87e9409ab563where they upscaled dvd to this blu ray ish hq format. I was wondering if anyone knew who the uploader was or knew their process to achieve this. They left a snippet of what they did but without instructions.
"Yes, All the "upscaled from DVD" videos are converted from original DVD.
This is how I do:1. Deinterlacing
Avisynth script QTGMC2.Upscaling
VirtualDub External filter SUPER RESOLUTION and internal filter WARP SHARP3.Interpolationg
After Effects external plugin TWIXTOR " -
There are a lot of video editing programs that can convert a DVD from one resolution to another–in this case, probably 480i to 720p. But all that does is average and smear the pixels to the higher pixel count, but it doesn't add any clarity to the image. Depending on the quality of the software, it might even degrade it.
I have two HD televisions, as well as the 4K computer monitor I'm staring at right now. In my experience, televisions and monitors with fixed resolution provide a higher quality picture when they're fed DVD video at its native resolution and do the upconverting themselves.
-
Hi there was someone who uploaded videos like this torrent
https://www.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=c1c9a8207cbc1ef06ca7cba6aabba0fef7ed87e9409ab563where they upscaled dvd to this blu ray ish hq format. I was wondering if anyone knew who the uploader was or knew their process to achieve this. They left a snippet of what they did but without instructions.
"Yes, All the "upscaled from DVD" videos are converted from original DVD.
This is how I do:1. Deinterlacing
Avisynth script QTGMC2.Upscaling
VirtualDub External filter SUPER RESOLUTION and internal filter WARP SHARP3.Interpolationg
After Effects external plugin TWIXTOR "Honestly, I don't believe in those things. There is very little improvement that can be made from an "upscaled" DVD. Same is true when someone thinks that can take an audio recording from MONO and make it HD. All you're really doing is just making it stereo! The only thing other you can probably do is adjust the equalizer to make the sound more pleasing. But it's still an analog recording.
The only reason why people do this is their crazy beliefs, or they just want a larger file to bet a bigger ratio return.
-AOS
-
Hi there was someone who uploaded videos like this torrent
https://www.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=c1c9a8207cbc1ef06ca7cba6aabba0fef7ed87e9409ab563where they upscaled dvd to this blu ray ish hq format. I was wondering if anyone knew who the uploader was or knew their process to achieve this. They left a snippet of what they did but without instructions.
"Yes, All the "upscaled from DVD" videos are converted from original DVD.
This is how I do:1. Deinterlacing
Avisynth script QTGMC2.Upscaling
VirtualDub External filter SUPER RESOLUTION and internal filter WARP SHARP3.Interpolationg
After Effects external plugin TWIXTOR "Honestly, I don't believe in those things. There is very little improvement that can be made from an "upscaled" DVD. Same is true when someone thinks that can take an audio recording from MONO and make it HD. All you're really doing is just making it stereo! The only thing other you can probably do is adjust the equalizer to make the sound more pleasing. But it's still an analog recording.
The only reason why people do this is their crazy beliefs, or they just want a larger file to bet a bigger ratio return.
-AOS
The biggest issue at play here is - more generally - most "off the shelf" algorithms for video upscaling ( i..e DVD to HD, for example ), are really not very sophisticated and most of the time actually worsen the overall perception of quality of a video.
The best consumer available stuff that does upscaling/super-resolution quite well is mostly found in high-end TVs (Sony is really good at this, for example). But then again, that stuff if proprietary so you can't really use it on your computer anyway…
If you really really really want to upscale something well, the you might as well look at more modern "deep learning" super-resolution approaches. There are now a lot of them, and the quality keeps steadily improving: https://github.com/ChaofWang/Awesome-Super-Resolution, https://github.com/thangvubk/video-super-resolution.
However, deep-learning super-resolution - while really much better than anything else - is extremely expensive, complex and taxing to implement: this stuff usually runs on what a normal person can already consider a "supercomputer" ($15k computer equipment, most of the time). If you are a prosumer gamer type, then you might be able to upscale a few videos and get cool results, but for the average joe, this approach is simply impractically (and probably, shall I say, unnecessary).
-
However, deep-learning super-resolution - while really much better than anything else - is extremely expensive, complex and taxing to implement: this stuff usually runs on what a normal person can already consider a "supercomputer" ($15k computer equipment, most of the time). If you are a prosumer gamer type, then you might be able to upscale a few videos and get cool results, but for the average joe, this approach is simply impractically (and probably, shall I say, unnecessary).
The way I see it, in order to truly "upscale," the program would have to literally be able to add new pixels! In essence, the program would have to create a new image, frame by frame. And when I say add, I don't mean stretch the freakin' thing, or change the ratio! I literally mean create a new image from old. And if such program exists, it wouldn't be perfect anyway, if the original source was fucked up to begin with. Don't people test this shit out? I don't understand how encoder believe have the shit they talk about.
-AOS
-
Upscaling a SD video and adding frames to make it 60 fps interpolated, (sorry is someone feels ofended) that's bullshit.
It has no sense, you won't get better quality by doing that, you will just get a bigger file size.
The reason why there are old films restored to HD/4K versions and they look really good, it's because those films (of big studios, with big budget generally) were recorded in 35mm, 65mm and 70mm films stock, the way image was saved in those films stock was completally different from actual digital cameras.
But if you don't have those original films stocks, you won't get better quality from an DVD image.
The best you can do, as eobox91103 says, is to let televisions use their own system to adjust the image, if the video you're playing has good quality (for example a well encoded SD video from a DVD source) it will look better than those upscaled videos, even if it's not HD.
(Hey AOS, good to see you here too)
-
Upscale a SD video and adding frames to make it 60 fps interpolated, (sorry is someone feels ofended) that's bullshit.
It has no sense, you won't get better quality by doing that, you will just get a bigger file size.
The reason why there are old films restores to HD/4K versions and they look really good, it's because those films (of big studios, with big budget generally) recorded them in 35mm, 65mm and 70mm films stock, the way image was saved in those films stock was completally different from actual digital cameras.
But if you don't have those original films stocks, you won't get better quality from an DVD image.
The best you can do, as eobox91103 says, if let televisions use their own system to adjust the image, if the video your playing has good quality (for example a well encoded SD video from a DVD source) it will look better than those upscaled videos, even if it's not HD.
(Hey AOS, good to see you here too)
Hey Gouryuu!!
Wow!! I'm impressed!!! Very, very few people understand how movies actually get remastered into higher quality! We're of the minority.
-AOS
-
Upscaling a SD video and adding frames to make it 60 fps interpolated, (sorry is someone feels ofended) that's bullshit.
It has no sense, you won't get better quality by doing that, you will just get a bigger file size.
The reason why there are old films restored to HD/4K versions and they look really good, it's because those films (of big studios, with big budget generally) were recorded in 35mm, 65mm and 70mm films stock, the way image was saved in those films stock was completally different from actual digital cameras.
But if you don't have those original films stocks, you won't get better quality from an DVD image.
The best you can do, as eobox91103 says, is to let televisions use their own system to adjust the image, if the video you're playing has good quality (for example a well encoded SD video from a DVD source) it will look better than those upscaled videos, even if it's not HD.
(Hey AOS, good to see you here too)
I don't see how much the discussion relates to film restoration and digital film stock scanning… I agree and it is true that upscaling high-quality SD content and adding interpolation frames to make it "high-frame rate" is definitely not going to make a meaningful difference, but will likely just make the picture more muddy and janky.
However, this needs not be completely true for all types of old, lossy-encoded digital content.
Just think about all the MPEG2 encoded videos that were then re-encoded in mid-quality h264/AVC - in these cases, there often is a significant degradation in quality due to encoding artefacts (blocky frames, smeared uniform colour areas, uneven gradients and so forth), chroma subsampling and interlaced-to-progressive adaptation. Newer, smarter super-resolution algorithms are known to perform really good in ironing out these artefacts and in proving a much better perceptual quality - and one certainly does not need to go from 480p to 4K at all. In fact, some algorithms work like a charm even when targeting the same resolution of the input for the output!
And yes, in the process we add some pixels that where not there before… yet that happens anyway when you watch a DVD on an HD television, just you don't know how it is done. I think it is better when the users have control over how upscaling/super-resolution is done.
Once it is done, we can still re-encode it in h264/h265/AV1 and have a small file with nicer visual quality than before. Doesn't sound so bad to me!
-
Upscaling a SD video and adding frames to make it 60 fps interpolated, (sorry is someone feels ofended) that's bullshit.
It has no sense, you won't get better quality by doing that, you will just get a bigger file size.
The reason why there are old films restored to HD/4K versions and they look really good, it's because those films (of big studios, with big budget generally) were recorded in 35mm, 65mm and 70mm films stock, the way image was saved in those films stock was completally different from actual digital cameras.
But if you don't have those original films stocks, you won't get better quality from an DVD image.
The best you can do, as eobox91103 says, is to let televisions use their own system to adjust the image, if the video you're playing has good quality (for example a well encoded SD video from a DVD source) it will look better than those upscaled videos, even if it's not HD.
(Hey AOS, good to see you here too)
I don't see how much the discussion relates to film restoration and digital film stock scanning… I agree and it is true that upscaling high-quality SD content and adding interpolation frames to make it "high-frame rate" is definitely not going to make a meaningful difference, but will likely just make the picture more muddy and janky.
However, this needs not be completely true for all types of old, lossy-encoded digital content.
Just think about all the MPEG2 encoded videos that were then re-encoded in mid-quality h264/AVC - in these cases, there often is a significant degradation in quality due to encoding artefacts (blocky frames, smeared uniform colour areas, uneven gradients and so forth), chroma subsampling and interlaced-to-progressive adaptation. Newer, smarter super-resolution algorithms are known to perform really good in ironing out these artefacts and in proving a much better perceptual quality - and one certainly does not need to go from 480p to 4K at all. In fact, some algorithms work like a charm even when targeting the same resolution of the input for the output!
And yes, in the process we add some pixels that where not there before… yet that happens anyway when you watch a DVD on an HD television, just you don't know how it is done. I think it is better when the users have control over how upscaling/super-resolution is done.
Once it is done, we can still re-encode it in h264/h265/AV1 and have a small file with nicer visual quality than before. Doesn't sound so bad to me!
Some how "high-quality SD," doesn't seem to fit in this conversation. Many of the movies people want to "restore," are not even 720p. You'd be lucky to find 480p, as so many movies have been shaved down to such a small size in order to save space, something would really be mentally wrong with someone, who thinks they can restore that in "HQ." I really do hate these trigger words, "Upscale," "Restore," etc. These words have some who lost their meaning as new technology creates new placebo techniques, while changing the meaning of words like "upscale." This is what many "coders," don't understand. These people probably do this because they want attention, or perhaps accolades. But, in reality, a lot of it is simply a waste of time, and it contributes to the unnecessary explosion of codecs all over the place. Worse than trying to find over the counter cold medicine. There's too fucking many!!
I liken this phenomenon (if you wanna call it that), to the whole 3D thing. People didn't understand what the fuck 3D actually is, and everyone thought it was so easy to convert any 2D in to 3D by changing it's container. But, people who ACTUALLY HAVE A 3D TV KNOWS THE F***KING DIFFERENCE! However, to those losers who seek attention, they see YOU as ungrateful. People need to stop this conversion obsession. You're not gonna get any more friends by making copies of these "upscale" files where there are no real major differences between them.
-AOS
-
No worse than the idiots who screw up the quality of studio rips just so they can put their 'ownership' logo on them. I see the gay-bb logo on a downloaded file and my heart sinks. It ususally goes straight to trash because the guy who makes those gay-bb rips does not know wtf he's doing.
Then there are those who download a 100-200 MB file from a free site and set about 'converting it to HD', at ten to twenty times the orginal file size, in the belief that they are making a 'much higher quality rip'. No. Unless you have some very expensive hardware and know what you are doing, you are simply turning a small crappy file into a much bigger crappy file.
There are so many bad rips out there. Why would anyone want to make yet another?
