VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 64
Thread
  1. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM


    Check out the pic - the one on the right is after. Nice how it gets rid of the aliasing jaggies. Also supports VirtualDub filters. You still might need to dehalo/dering, although the source I used was a low bitrate Xvid file. The developer has a 30 day full eval on his site. And no, I'm not affiliated with the product it any way.

    http://www.thedeemon.com/VideoEnhancer/
    Quote Quote  
  2. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  3. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    Veeeeeeerrrrryyyyyyyy slow on my Athlon XP2600+!
    It takes 1 Hour and 25 min for a 4.14 minute 352 x 240 video clip compressed with mjpeg pic video 3 to make it 704 x 480!
    Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    No, nothing wrong. It does motion compensated resizing, which requires a ton of processing power.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Bicubic Resize followed by a Sharpen or two in VirtaulDub or AVISynth does just about as well and is much faster.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    You can try eedi2 from Tritical in AviSynth, but the end result doesn't look great (still, it's fantastic for deinterlacing - the intended use for the plugin)

    eedi2().turnright().eedi2().turnleft()


    Another option might be to resize larger than desired, antialias, sharpen, then downsample to the desired dimension. Problem is, the luma gets trashed when you do it.

    Also, there is Stair/Stairstep Interpolation, where you upsize in small increments until you reach your desired size. Not great, however.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    When you first posted this topic, I read it and thought about it some, but
    put the idea away. Anyway.

    Soopafresh, if you know of any.. can you please give us some sample AVI's
    in HD format, to play with. I'm with jagabo. You can do all this in vdub
    and AVIsynth filtering -- but you know this, and I'm not trying to tell
    or teach you anything you don't already know

    The idea is that we should embark on a trail toward the most *effecient* method
    of producing HD 'like (upscaling) quality, topic.

    The reason for the thoughts are simple. Because many members here and every-
    where else, are slowly moving towards HD, that the sources we still have on
    hand, in SD (or, standard quality) will need to be upscaled to HD specs, in
    order to play in these higher capacity devices. I realize that many of these
    devices will have built-in "upscaling" capabilities, but it wouldn't hurt to
    explore "software" solutions. And, in fact, in a recent reading (elsewhere)
    an actaul expereince has taken place, where a certain unit is not performing
    as well in the things of upscaling and producing quality results. So, "software"
    solutions is (or can be) a posible alternative.

    Software Upscaling Methods..
    So, in everyone's best interest, it would be a wise move to explore this area
    further

    -vhelp 4086
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Agreed ! Yeah, it's a tough issue and it would benefit us all to see if we can tackle upscaling. Let me see if I can find a couple of clips that we can all experiment with. Vhelp - why do you suggest HD clips for example files ?
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Soopafresh,

    Sorry for the confusion. I think that after reading one too many posts and
    articles on similar HD resources, that my thoughts must have crossed over
    into something else I was thinking. Again, sorry.

    .
    .

    I think that what I was actaully trying ty say was, that if we had a few
    basic (clean) sources to practice on, we might all help each other find a
    practicle method with good results, that all of us could use.

    .
    .

    Also, to note regarding HD spec sources, last time I did some reading up on
    it, HD requires 4:2:2 sampling in order to be HD spec. If I'm wrong, please
    correct me But, I don't think I am wrong on this. And in this case, we
    need to note this, when we are aiming for HD format, to not encode our MPEG's
    using the tipicle 4:2:0 sampling and 720 x 480 resolution.

    Profile & Level setting..
    As I was noting above, when working towards HD spec, in order for this to work
    and produce a HD mpeg source, the setup has to be changed to either of the
    following to be at least, successful:

    TMPGEnc setup, under video tab

    ** [High Profile & High-1440 Level ] and [4:2:2 ]
    ** [High Profile & High Level (HP@HL)] and [4:2:2 ]
    ** [4:2:2 Profile & Main Level (422P@ML)] and [4:2:2 ][/b]

    And of course, the resolution has to be changed as well. I'm too lazy to look up
    the resolution options, but last I worked on an HD source, I had the resoution at
    1280 x 720 dimensions.

    If you noticed, I BOLDed the 3rd item, because I think that this is the one we
    are suppose to setup with, but the others provide 4:2:2 sampling, so I included
    them as well in this list. I'm not sure what the *exact* calling on this is,
    but they all work for the time being. I would prefer to call the excact specs,
    if possible.

    Also, to point out here, that when working with aiming towards HD spec, there are
    several key points to keep in mind, to help minimize quality disturbances. And
    these key points are:

    ** Aspect Ratio; Resizing; and sub-sampling upwards;

    As I have seen on various occasions, that there are many units that do not do
    as good a job at bringing an SD type source upwards (upscaled) to HD specs. I see
    this a lot, and where the results *are* poor. But to note, one excuse for the
    poor results could be blamed on the TV sets being watched on. So that needs to
    be considered as well.

    And, when we attempt at upscaling to HD spec, the Aspect Ratio + Resolution
    need to be properly balanced for minimal artifacts.

    Bitrate.. also needs to be looked at in a new light. The old days of trying to
    fit so much on one small media is not as forgiving in this new format. So, high
    bitrate methods should be considered.
    And, to get more done, in terms of testing, etc. it would probably be a wise
    move to utilize 1-pass CBR method in this regimum, for now.

    .
    .

    Now, as far as providing test samples for everyone to practice on, we could have
    the most common ones posted: VHS; Laserdisc; DVD; are some examples. Though,
    I would prefer *clean* sources. Nothing with blemishes, if at all possible.

    VHS would be the exception to this, because it is the most noisiest of all.
    But, these are the THREE most used sources, and you can't discount them, because
    everyone *does* use at least one of them. And, you know how people are with
    transfering/encoding the worst of sources. So, you can't say, no, to that
    kind of source -- cause you know, sooner or later, you'll be reading, where
    someone wants to transfer such sources to HD spec. (And you know its gonna
    be VHS or something worse)

    .
    .

    Well, these are things to look at and consider. I hope I got most, if not all,
    correct. And try to understand, that this driving-hobby of mine is to blame
    here, for all this babbling about, above

    -vhelp 4089
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Just a few notes, Vhelp. There's so much technical information out there regarding image resizing that my head is spinning. Here's a good starter from Mr VirtualDub himself:

    http://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=86


    I stumbled upon a pretty decent resizing algo in Mpeg StreamClip v1.01 for PC - it uses a technique called 2D-FIR scaling. I have no idea what that means at the moment. Time to hit the Google search pages. Still, pretty good results, except for the usual Aliasing that needs to be addressed. Fast, though.


    Encoding to 720p or higher - there are several issues to address in that area - 1) Encoding is slowwwwwwwww - .5 fps on a 3Ghz PC 2) Encoding should be set to fixed bitrate, single pass (obviously), and ultimately muxed into MPEG2 Transport Stream format, depending on playback device. 3) a Two Hour movie is not going to fit on a 4.xGB DVD . In the last regard, you can see why h264 has captivated the video enthusiast world, but encoding to h264 is even slower than Mpeg2. I really question if a home PC is going to cut it.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Soopafresh,

    (most info/facts here, are based on my own current experiences with HD)

    One thing that I have noticed (on some pics) image sources that I've seen
    show no "granularity" or gradients throughout the image. That displeases
    me. In normal Commercial produced DVD sources (including Digital Satellite)
    you have gradients in the image. Its hard for me to explain. But this
    gradient is what is giving the image its overall quality appeal.

    When you starting futzing around with an image that has not been prepped,
    (aka, gradient) as an example, resizing/upscaling, you are just doing so
    with "individually" (non-gradient) (NG) colored dots. And, beause these NG
    images, when resizing, they don't have that even flow of grandularity of
    pixels. Instead, you have (similarily speaking) two harizontal lines not
    evenly spaced (for upscaling) who's end result is poor, due to the equations
    used to "filter" during the resizing or upscaling. Like I said, its hard
    for me to explain.

    Therefore, it would seem to be that HD source do not go through a prep stage
    (pre-filtering) much like the Commercial DVD's do. Because of their size,
    they are just taken as-is and thrown at us, as HD.. wahoo!

    Now, taking a source who *has* gone through the prep stage, and is a good
    size -- 720 x 480 for instance. You can probably do better at upscaling it
    to HD size with the right combination of filter and upscaling technique.

    There is an example (experiment) that I would like to partake in with regards
    to one of my laserdisc's and use it as part of my upscaling to HD tests.

    Because the star wars is comming out in HD soon, (exact date unknown) I
    though it would be a good test example to compare results from. I realize
    that it probably won't be as good as the pros, when complete, but there
    would be some things learnt from it, at the very least.

    Well, that's all I have for now.

    -vhelp 4100
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    vhelp - Both the 1080i and 720p sources recorded OTA are 4:2:0

    Also, found an upscaling app that's supposed to work in AfterEffects and Premiere (of which I have neither, so I can't test it). Price is right -$100. Once again, supposed to be slow. The guy who wrote the first app in this thread has re-released his upsizer that is Dual Core optimized.

    http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthd.html

    Also, here's some HDV clips - http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images.htm

    Finally, FFMPEG can encode to MPEG2 at 29,000kbs and 1280x720 (it might encode at even higher resolution, haven't tried it). Lemme know if you'd like the syntax.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Morning Soopafresh,

    Great to hear from ya. I have soo much on my place, in terms of just
    video app tools to code -- the ideas keep comming in. And, I'm working
    on multiple programming projects as we speak. So anything is possible
    out of all this an example..

    Lemme know if you'd like the syntax.
    Yeah, (I mean, yes) if you don't mind.. I'll take a crack at it. I have
    a tiny tool -- gui-like that accepts dragged in files to process in ffmpeg,
    though its not complete, but working. It might prove useful, with user
    ideas, etc., moving forward.

    Cheers,
    -vhelp 4115
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Search Comp PM
    In case anyone is interested, there is another path to video upsampling that I've seen, but haven't personally used. It's called Topaz Enhance, and is a set of plugins for After Effects, Premiere Pro and Digital Fusion. At $349 it's more expensive than what you're discussing, but it includes other tools also. There is a 30 day free trial, so anyone who's experimenting with upsampling could give it a try.

    While I haven't tried Enhance, I regularly use another of their products, Topaz Moment, which does upsampled video capture (output is one frame only). The captures using Moment are the best I've seen produced by any software, or technique(s) (which is why I use it regularly). It is certainly better than the best technique I had previously worked out, which was overlaying several frames in photoshop, reduce noise with Neat Image, adjust levels and color, upsample using the Hybrid SE algorithm in QImage, and finally deblurring with Focus Magic.

    You've got to figure they would use the same upsampling module in both the products, in which case the Enhance upsampled video might well give the highest quality possible. Or maybe it won't. The only way to tell for sure is if someone is willing to play around with it.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    To do HD encodes with FFmpeg, grab the latest version from http://ffdshow.faireal.net/mirror/ffmpeg/

    The newest versions allow direct Avisynth input and multiple threads (if you have enough procs in your PC)


    ffmpeg.exe -i x.avs -threads 2 -vcodec mpeg2video -r 23.976 -dc 10 -g 15 -bufsize 786 -minrate 8000 -b 12000 -maxrate 18000 -aspect 16:9 -s 1280x720 -an -mbd 2 -qmin 2 -async 1 -y "x.m2v"


    All of the above settings are suggested, but work fine for me. I've gone as high as 29000 for the bitrate.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by Soopafresh
    I stumbled upon a pretty decent resizing algo in Mpeg StreamClip v1.01 for PC - it uses a technique called 2D-FIR scaling. I have no idea what that means at the moment.
    It means two dimensional Finite Impulse Response. It implies all frame is treated as a two dimensional picture, and low pass filters are used to removed the sudden signal change. The outcome should be softer. For true pcitures, FIR are able to remove dot and dash of dirt spot, I assume this is also true in this application.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks, SingSing. I did not know that (said in my best Johnny Carson voice).
    Quote Quote  
  18. The video enhancer application does not have mpeg-2 output. Which is best video format for its output, before feeding it thru a mpeg encoder like TMPGenc ?
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Lagarith v1.39 gives lossless compression and is fairly fast. Compresses a bit better than Huffyuv. Cineform HD codecs ($100.00) can do an almost 2:1 compression depending on the amount of motion on the source file, that is - a 1GB Mpeg file is 2GB in Cineform.

    I guess Lagarith is the way to go.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    BUMP ..

    hay Soopafresh I was reading around and even posted my throughts in another
    thread over here, (below) and it got me to thinking (for fooling around some) work in
    h264 (x264) vfw encoder. I thought I would play around with the command-line aspects
    of it and 1280 x 720p dimensions, and see how far I might get with it.

    Since you mentioned h264 (via ffmpeg ?? ) ..

    If I'm not mistaken, the prefered route is through cmd-line, (rather than the gui) so I
    was wondering (since you've worked with this x264-cli encoder) if you know of a few
    good .BAT scrip (cmd-line) strings to throw at it. I've since upgraded my computer and
    windows os, so I should see better performance from my prev setup. I would be greatful

    Thanks.

    F: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic333556.html -- Digital TV / DVB / HDTV
    S: what is upconversion real mean? -- by Xnici;(5 ), July 19, 2007

    -vhelp 4358
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Sure, but the easiest way is to copy the processing logs of AutoMKV (specifically the X264 lines) to a .BAT file. AutoMKV is a pretty good app as it is.



    Here's a 2 pass example snagged from the log:

    x264_encode.cmd
    Quote Quote  
  22. Hi All!

    about AutoMKV a quick view of command line can be obtained in Advanced Profiles Editing, at botton is show the command line

    changing the profile, or editing the xml and ckecking "Use this profile" will update the command line at bottom

    and about upconversione.. i suggest to try with automkv the LanczosmtPlus , only for upconversion (just write a bigger value than actual width in Width or in Manual Cropping), otherwise automkv will switch to lanczos

    BHH
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Morning guys.

    @ Soopafresh or anybody..

    Keeping in mind that I am (still) on dial-up, and this files are 8 MB or greater..
    I noticed in the link from the tools page of this windows application, that
    there are many versions (and noted alternates) to choose from. I'm not sure
    which one I should choose for the occasion. w/ dial-up, I can't afford to just
    D/L them all (quickly) and see for myself. You understand.

    I have high hopes to write yet another tool/front-end to these cmd-line
    specialties -- for home personal use, of course. I like mine because I always
    design them with drag n drop lugzury. Anyways.

    As always, Thanks guys.

    --> http://mirror.hostbrigade.com/automkv/

    Parent Directory
    AutoMKV076.rar
    AutoMKV076_NODECRYPTER.rar
    AutoMKV078.rar
    AutoMKV078_NORIP.rar
    AutoMKV078a.rar
    AutoMKV078c.exe
    AutoMKV079a.rar
    AutoMKV079a_NORIP.rar

    AutoMKV080.rar <--- 12 MB, 50 min.., downloading now..
    AutoMKV080_NORIP.rar
    AutoMKV080b.exe


    -vhelp 4359
    Quote Quote  
  24. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    Just to add, that you can use the vfm version of x264 with virtualdub and the Super encoder.

    Super has that "batch encoding" feature and you can also force the aspect ratio. The problem is that the encoding results are somehow inferior the other methods, but you sure speed up things.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    True, but the problem with Super is that you have to install it. AutoMkv is a matter of unzipping. No registry changes, etc.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    @ SatStorm I've been using x264 via VirtualDub for some time now. No,
    not every day, but on occasions, its been my regular method of encoding the
    videos this way. But, I was on the assumption that you can gain more control
    (and possibly, quality) by going directly to source, via cmd-line from a dos
    console window. Course, I'll leave that up to a front-end that I will devise.

    Peronally, I think I'm gonna go with the x264 via cmd-line. I want to be able
    to write quick cmd-line scripts to throw at it, and being able to create front-end
    tools (GUI's) for personal use is a plus since I can make any changes or add-on's
    (feature'wise) as I see fit -- all this will help me in that path.

    I think that Soopafresh idea with AutoMkV is prob a good idea, after all..
    for the cmd-line scripts (params) to syphen from and into my gui. I'm sure there
    are other front-end tools already made for x264, but I want to write one for my
    specific needs.

    -- Soopafresh, if you get any good x264 cmd-line script tips (param setup)
    please don't hesitate to post them. Thanks, everyone.

    -vhelp 4362
    Quote Quote  
  27. i am suprised that InstantHD isnt mentioned that much (or at all).

    i have InstantHD and it did give me results that i find very good, but i am not exactly the HD experts to your eyes, and as i did beofre in another forum, i made an Upscale of a sequence from the film Final Fantasy VII Advent Children, and it was in a compressed divx.

    i think i might want to do that again.
    Quote Quote  
  28. okay, i know my reply might have silenced this thread here, i do apologize, but i have gone through the effort on Upscaling the scene from the film using InstantHD, and hoping to see if anyone can give me their opinion on what they think. True HD experts

    the scene by the way is around 2mins 30secs, and at the moment, the oringal SD and direct rip to Lagarith is over 800MB while the upscaled version goes around over 4GB on the Lagarith codec aswell, and i know it would be waaaay too big for u lot to download, so i was wondering if anyoen can give me a codec that cn retain the quality (since it is a CGI movie) and to a smaller file size, so i can upload it for those who can watch and handle HD vidoes on their PCs.

    thanks. i am really excited to know wat u lot think.

    Cheers.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    H.264 would be the best option. Ditch the audio as it doesn't matter in this instance.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!