+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 42 of 42
-
Disagree all you want, but the horizontal dimension was ALWAYS* an estimate, while the vertical was not. This affects many downstream processes (digital or not), including anti-aliasing.
Scott
*For analog originated material & interlaced material, which for DV & SD is 90% of these categories.Last edited by Cornucopia; 19th May 2015 at 00:40.
-
Cornucopia, thanks, I must have missed some of your posts when I searched on this:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/365241-Is-720x480-DVD-source-conversion-to-720x540-upscaling?
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/371211-Encoding-DVD-Movie-Does-the-DAR-Really-matte...80-vs-648x480?
Yes, now 640x480 makes sense.
Probably you're tired of questions like this, but if I could ask (on behalf of those working with DV): if you start with a dv-avi video that's 720x480 interlaced, and you're trying to convert it to square-pixel 59.97 progressive, why is it worse to upscale the vertical 480->540 instead of downscale the horizontal 720->640? -
First, you wouldn't/shouldn't convert to 59.97, but rather 59.94 (yours was probably a typo).
Next, there are "retained detail" benefits to downscaling, as opposed to upscaling, having to do with internal interpolation vs. extrapolation, as well as with oversampling.
Scott -
Thanks Scott, yes that was a typo - 59.94 it is. And OK, I always thought detail was thrown away when downscaling. I guess not. (and then throw on top all the other reasons to not change the vertical resolution, and it all makes sense)
AI: if you or anyone else is interested, I started a new thread about ripping semi-pro DVD's to eventually use with QTGMC for 59.94 progressive convertion:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/372016-Questions-about-Handbrake-DVD-rip-QTGMC-59-94-progressive? -
It is clear opinions differ on this matter, I'd say upscale to 720x640 that's 540 of course!
I suspect the downscale argument is mostly driven by "standards fetishism" rather than objective information theoretical arguments but I do not mind to be proven wrong ( "internal interpolation vs. extrapolation, as well as with oversampling" techno-lingo does not particularly impress me).
But to each his own, although unfortunately it seems that quite a few folks prefer to "resolve" difference of opinions using petty ad-hominem arguments. I suppose I should get my pill-box out
Edited to correct: 720x640 obviously must be 720x540
Last edited by newpball; 22nd May 2015 at 15:53.
-
High time!
*********
Upscaling to those settings would give one an improper display aspect ratio (1.125:1, aka 9:8).
Sounds like more sour grapes.
Scott -
-
I just reliazed, with more DVavi files you can run more instances, for example if 3x ten CPU would be 100%.
For example drop couple of DV avi files (or much more) onto "make progressive mp4.BAT", and then do it again with different files, then CPU would be around 80%, ...., you do it again with some other DVavi files you need to re-encode and CPU would be 100%. So running more than 3 instances would make little sense, but if you want to force to work processors to 100% and using QTGMC without special Avisynth MT, it is possible, to go around and do that.
Doing this perhaps it would be a good idea to assign temp folder (in settings.BAT) to some other hardisk of yours or destination folder perhaps as well. Temp is using while encoding streams (video and audio). Destination is used while muxing those streams.Last edited by _Al_; 22nd May 2015 at 16:33.
-
Here you posted a 1440x1080 zone plate scaled to 720x480 and then via 720x540 vs 640x480. I've highlighted portions of the section that you cropped. Very roughly eyeballed, orange is where the 720x540 becomes mushy, red is where the 640x480 breaks down, and green is where the 640x480 retains better definition than the 720x540.
The 640x480 looks mainly worse in the red section, but that's because this is an artificial scenario where the horizontal resolution has been constructed to be fully utilized. You should be able to show the same thing using something like Big Buck Bunny or other CG content. Neither case is the same as an image filtered by a lens hitting a sensor, that's then processed and compressed. -
Similar Threads
-
Unable to load MXF Files to Adobe Media Encoder CS6
By Carl Enslin in forum Video ConversionReplies: 2Last Post: 19th Feb 2015, 22:28 -
n/m
By ixy in forum DVD RippingReplies: 0Last Post: 7th Jul 2013, 13:54 -
AME CS6 still poorer than Handrake
By x2x3x2 in forum Video ConversionReplies: 4Last Post: 2nd Aug 2012, 22:06 -
best media player capable of high level h.264 video?
By hiohaa in forum Media Center PC / MediaCentersReplies: 1Last Post: 2nd Mar 2012, 15:37 -
Media Player Classic - Home Cinema Settings Help
By ACiDxCHRiST in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 5Last Post: 17th Sep 2011, 23:29