Making standard def Hi def
by Simon Fuller
on
Jun 5, 2005 at 9:31:46 pm
Hi forum,
I have heard that you can Up res SD footage to Hi def, is this possible or is is a load of fantasy. If it's true, will the HD channels accept it as HD? Is it expensive.
any advice will be helpful.
Simon
Simon Fuller
Lighting cameraman
London UK
simon@simonfullerpictures.tv
www.simonfullerpictures.tv
447763123904
Re: Making standard def Hi def by Ben Waggoner on Jun 5, 2005 at 9:38:50 pm
Apple's new Compressor 2 has some deeply impressive scaling and temporal upsampling algorithms from Motion. Optical flow resampling, statistical scaling, etcetera. It looks to provide excellent, tunable quality for format conversion of this sort. However, it's enormously slow - about 6 hours per minute of source on the fastest Mac today in my tests so far, with HD to HD conversion. SD to HD might be a lot faster. I did a 1080i60 to 720p60 conversion with it which was pretty much perfect (not that this is a particularly stressful conversion).
Re: Making standard def Hi def by You Can Call Me Al on Jun 16, 2005 at 12:35:01 am
Hi all,
Newbie here when it comes to HD...
I did a video (FCP3) with a lot of stills scanned in at 300dpi for a customer who has a new fancy HD TV and of course it looks like crap on his tv but fine on a cheapo tv.
Anybody have any ideas of how I can make it look better for him?
I have compressor 1.2 ...
only idea I have is to project it and film it with a HD cam.
Re: Quality Question for Ben Waggoner by Gary Taylor on Jun 16, 2005 at 8:34:14 pm
Hi Ben,
I have a couple of questions for you. If aquiring on a 720p camera were a perfect 10 how would you rate your conversion in Compressor and a scale from 1 to 10. From what you desribe it sounds like it could be a 9 or 9.5.
I know many projectors and flat screens have to convert from 1080i to 720p on the fly. I would expect this to vary but what kind of quality range would you use to describe this internal conversion on the same scale from 1 to 10? I am hoping I can get a boost in quality by going the software route.
Re: Quality Question for Ben Waggoner by Ben Waggoner on Jun 16, 2005 at 9:27:44 pm
It's hard to rate numerically, and the transcode is so slow I haven't had time to test a wide variety of content. By eyeball I can't tell that it has been transcoded though, which is a big win. It's certainly better than the real-time hardware conversion in the projectors.
