Upconvert SD footage to UltraHD

[PeterVR]

Hi everyone,

I am going to upconvert SD footage to UltraHD. During my research I came to the conclusion that there are two devices I can use: The Teranex AV and the AJA FS3.

So I doubt about which to buy. They both claim to upconvert SD to UltraHD with the best alorithm and quality, so I have to base my decision on experiences of users and experts.

What advice do you people give to me? Thanks a lot for your help.

Peter.

[Cornucopia]

Most important question: why?

Why do that at all? SD will still look like SD, regardless. So you've optimized the upscale algorithm, but if you're reencoding, you will likely lose any minor gains gotten from the algorithm.

Waste of time. Unless you are adding it to other true UHD material in an edit session.

Scott

[PeterVR]

Hi Scott, thanks for your fast reaction. As you said, it's for mixing SD-footage into newer standards. I hope this topic will not be about the discussion why I will do this. This topic is specifically about the technical experiences of both devices and which is the better one when we talk about upconverting to a larger resolution.

[KarMa]

nnedi3_rpow2() would probably one of the best options, and it's software based.

[jagabo]

I would agree with KarMa. If you're not working in a live video environment nnedi3_rpow2() will give better results than any hardware upscaler. Even better is waifu2x() but that is really slow.

[Mysteryx]

SuperRes+NNEDI3 will give you further better results than NNEDI3 alone.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=172698

If you're looking at upscaling for playback, madVR brings the best quality for the job -- and can bring any graphic card to its knees, depending how you configure it.

If it's for further video editing, then Avisynth+SuperRes+NNEDI3 will give you great results.

[SameSelf]

Most important question: why?

Why do that at all? SD will still look like SD, regardless. So you've optimized the upscale algorithm, but if you're reencoding, you will likely lose any minor gains gotten from the algorithm.

Waste of time. Unless you are adding it to other true UHD material in an edit session.

Scott

How many times have I seen this from other posters? An OP asks a question, especially a new forum member. Then a long time poster, in a matter of minutes, instead of answering the question, passively berates the OP for daring to even attempt the task at hand.

This forum should have rules against these sort of posts. At the very least, these sort of posts act to highjack the thread, as the OP correctly points out. At the worst, they are insulting, rude, and display an extraordinary amount of arrogance and ignorance.

[_Al_]

Common, how many times is the question wrong. Why is a legit question if question is in question. He added, that he needs it to mix it with other footage and show goes on ...

1 in 5 question regarding upscale is because folks really think they'd improve visual , but forgetting that filesize gets much bigger and even possibly getting worse result because you introduce one more compression as oppose player/TV/whatever hardware/software upscale.

[SameSelf]

Yes, that is a grand idea. Let's lump all new forum members into the same bucket, especially those from the Nederlands. I bet 90% of them fall into the 1 in 5 bucket you speak of. The Dutch are all alike, amiright? Feats of strength should also be required before being allowed to post a question!

[_Al_]

How about writing an essay, for example: Why someone asks WHY? But outside of this forum.
This forum, is technical advisory forum, you have to ask why if there are chances it better should not be done or done differently. It happens on regular bases here.

[manono]

Yes, there's nothing wrong with asking why. Knowing why can often help to provide a better answer. And 90% of the time the poster actually thinks upscaling will create a better looking video. I run into it all the time on YouTube where some ignoramus asks me to upscale my VHS tape or DVD sources to Hi-Def the way other equally ignorant channels already do. I gently tell them no thanks because 480p already brings out about all the detail possible.

Here PeterVR had a good reason to do it and after cornucopia found out, others jumped in with the best solutions. There was absolutely wrong with asking the question.

[SameSelf]

There was a lot more in that post than just asking why. If you want to pretend that the response stopped at the question why, go right ahead.

[PeterVR]

Hi everyone, relax and don't spend longer time to this discussion above me. I have got a new question. Just for the check.
The program (animation) I want to upconvert is -as far as I can see in the archive data- on DigiBeta tapes and 16mm film. I suggested the upconvert hardware, because first of all I have to capture the footage to my pc. Do you people believe that the quality will be better if I let make a digital scan of the 16mm film, rather then capturing the DigiBeta? I suggest the 16mm is the master, but I don't exactly know. Does that make a difference?

[poisondeathray]

Hi everyone, relax and don't spend longer time to this discussion above me. I have got a new question. Just for the check.
The program (animation) I want to upconvert is -as far as I can see in the archive data- on DigiBeta tapes and 16mm film. I suggested the upconvert hardware, because first of all I have to capture the footage to my pc. Do you people believe that the quality will be better if I let make a digital scan of the 16mm film, rather then capturing the DigiBeta? I suggest the 16mm is the master, but I don't exactly know. Does that make a difference?

It would depend on the condition of the film, the type of original animation, the scanning process and equipment. There is wide variation and it depends on how much you want to spend. But potentially it could yield much higher quality .

[johnmeyer]

I transfer film for a living. If you have access to the original 16mm film (or a decent print) that will almost certainly be better than any other source, assuming that the original was film. Even if the 16mm film is a Kinescope, it will probably be better, unless you have another source that is from the original videotape. Usually something that is on a Kinescope is not also available on video, but once in awhile you can find both sources. In that case, if you can get the 2" Quadruplex video, or a Beta (professional) copy of that, you want to use that instead.

[PeterVR]

That's clear, thanks!