Upscaling to 4k?

[BlurayHD]

Hi guys I wish to know how to make an 4k scaling from some Blurays that I have, I so on some sites this MKV and I know is not a native 4k but the quality is great and I wonder if you can tell me how to do it so I can do it mayself with some movies that I love

Thank You in advance

[VoodooFX]

Spline16Resize(3840,2160)

[BlurayHD]

Spline16Resize(3840,2160)

Thank You but I´m looking for a tool forupscaling 1080p to 4k resolution, I don´t know which one to use

[VoodooFX]

That filter will upscale anything to 4K. [Tool is Avisynth]

[Cornucopia]

Why do you want to do this?

Standard outcome of a 240, 480, 720, 1080, whatever played on a 4k screen is 4k (2160 to be exact), using "fit", or "stretch", etc upscaling options*, so no need to upscale ahead of time, UNLESS you are either: editing material together and need a common framesize, or expecting to share and present on devices that cannot upscale properly. Or you think your methods of scaling can improve on that available to the hardware. Regardless, scaling at any other times than during playback requires resaving, and that almost always means lossy re-encoding which means you will lose quality in the process. Kind of counter-productive.

Scott

*(It is only not doing this if you turn off scaling by choosing "original" or similar designation, or play in a window)

[johns0]

I wouldn't upscale 1080p to 2160p,there no filter that will add missing information,filters just basically sharpen the pic which introduces artifacts which people ignore thinking the video is better.

[Quint]

"Upscaling", "upscaling" hyped everywhere. And everybody thinks quality is improved - and wants to think so. People believe in magic, nothing new.
"Upscaling", even A.I. based can NOT do magic, and add details that are not in the source - the best thing it can is to add details coming from guesses/other resources, which will look "better" but is in fact a fake. Structures like grass will look "better", and in the best case there will in fact be more details there, but the details are not the details that miss in the original, not the blades of grass that lived on the meadow where the film was shot, but complete different, guessed blades coming from VERY different sources, maybe like brushes, hair, or just different meadows.
Even a lot worse, if you "upscale" less detailled UNIQUE things like faces or as one can read often here: license plates. Here it is impossible to generate additional, unique details: plates will look more detailled, but you can still not read it, and faces will look - at best - like some other faces, or worst case: like monsters.

[Hoser Rob]

Why do you want to do this?

+1. Why? You cannot put in information that isn't there. It's not going to improve the quality.

[jagabo]

If you play a 1080p video full screen on a 4K TV it will be upscaled somewhere along the way. Typically by the player or by the TV. You may be able to upscale a little better in software than particular players or TVs. But it will be time consuming and the resulting video will need lots of bitrate. And since most 4K TVs have decent upscaling the improvement won't be much.

Also, in many cases most of the final result is really cleaning the source video before the upscaling.

In AviSynth nnedi3_rpow2() (maybe with a little sharpening) will work better than Spline36Resize(). It will give sharper edges with less aliasing and halo artifacts.

[netmask56]

My Zidoo UHDA3000 has the ability to play any file in faux HDR10+ or Dolby Vision. On most most modern material the VS10 engine does a credible job when viewed on my SONY 9500H screen. Subtitles are a tad over bright but the next firmware should fix that, if they remember.... I checked a 1930 movie shot in 70mm wide screen "The Big Trail" with John Wayne as a very young man, black and white in faux Dolby Vision and it looked really good. No CGI back then and the FX were all real, wagons going over a cliff ? Well they were real wagons going over a cliff! Only the Great depression and the rise of the dictators in Europe preventing cinema advances earlier than when we finally got it. However many media players and TV's can do a credible faux upscale to fool the eye rather than attempting it with software.

[ConsumerDV]

I can see a reason to upscale if the TV's scaler is crap. A better reason is to deinterlace if the TV's deinterlacer is crap. With BD, I would not bother.

[rrats]

Upscaling and filtering sources only makes sense when the source is interlaced SD. Upscaling progressive full hd video makes 0 sense

[VoodooFX]

Upscaling and filtering sources only makes sense when the source is interlaced SD. Upscaling progressive full hd video makes 0 sense

Yep, your post makes 0 sense, because it's not interlaced.

[rrats]

What is your point

[VoodooFX]

Point is: If you see reasons to upscale SD then same logic applies to full HD, so your statement is oxymoron aka nonsense.

[rrats]

Your statement is nonsense. SD upscaling makes way more sense as it's resolution is more than 1/4 in size of 4k. Also DVD is most common amongst DVDs and they often times need inverse telecining, doubling the need for processing.

[VoodooFX]

Upscaling and filtering sources only makes sense when the source is interlaced SD. Upscaling progressive full hd video makes 0 sense

SD upscaling makes way more sense as it's resolution is more than 1/4 in size of 4k. Also DVD is most common amongst DVDs and they often times need inverse telecining, doubling the need for processing.

"way more" I guess means something like 10 times, let's count it then:
0 [aka "0 sense"] * 10 = 0. [So your statement that 0 is way more than 0 doesn't make any sense.]

"doubling the need":
0 * 2 = 0 [Still doesn't make sense]

"SD... is more than 1/4 in size of 4k", it's interesting statement, let's convert it to numbers:
3840 x 2160 is lowest 4K res.
3840 [4K] / 4 = 960
2160 [4K] / 4 = 540
960 x 540 = 518400 [we got here your "1/4 in size of 4k"]

720x576 = 414720 [here is highest SD res]

414720 is not more than 518400, so your "SD... is more than 1/4 in size of 4k" claim is another nonsense.

"Upscaling... interlaced SD. Upscaling progressive full hd...":
Somehow binding interlaced vs progressive with a need to upscale is yet another nonsense. Btw, HD can be interlaced too.


As you've interesting upscaling logics, I like to ask you a question: How much an upscaling sense you weight in this hypothetical statement - "HD resolution is 1/4 in size of 8K"?

PS:
If this post is hard to understand then don't worry, half of it is sarcasm and mainly about nonsense [sense] anyway...

[Cornucopia]

@VoodooFX, while quite entertaining, thank you, the bit about size and fractions is off, because with area you must compare area to area, not dimension to dimension.

So 8k (7680 x 4320) is 4x
4k (3840 x 2160) which is 4x
2k/HD (1920 x 1080) which is 4x
"QHD" (960 x 540).
And 720x480/576 is smaller than that.
I think the original assertion that SD is "more than a quarter of " HD, is worded incorrectly (it is LESS than 1/4), but the perspective is on track.


Scott

[VoodooFX]

@Cornucopia
I used his "1/4 in size of 4k" res counting system [aka quarter of the horizontal and vertical (my assumption)], if he meant area/pixel counting like you then he made even less sense, less sense than 0, negative nonsense [does negative nonsense make it sense?].

[dellsam34]

Upscaling anything beyond 1080 for the sake of just upscaling is a waste of storage space, Any display panel can take 1080 and resize it to its native resolution by simple multiplying the lines (2k->x1, 4k->x2, 8k->x4, 16k->x8 …). If enhancements and restoration is intended that's completely a different story.

I also believe that anything below 1080 should be de-interlaced and upscaled to 1080p using the best methods available today, Future displays may not have the upscaling capabilities we have today for two reasons, First, manufacturing cost cutting, Second, SD contents will not be as important in 2 decades or so as it is today, therefore the feature will be less important to implement, or will be just an after though that butchers the look of a SD content.

[Selur]

When comparing 4k agains SD on should use scale SD to 1:1 PAR beforehand.

960 x 540 = 518400 [we got here your "1/4 in size of 4k"]
720x576 = 414720 [here is highest SD res]

so as soon as the PAR = 1.25, SD would be the same as quarter HD

[VoodooFX]

When comparing 4k agains SD on should use scale SD to 1:1 PAR beforehand.

No, that is comparing apples to oranges.

...same as quarter HD

The guy said "quarter 4k".

[Selur]

No, that is comparing apples to oranges.

I agree to disagree. Comparing suqare pixel and anamophic pixels like you do seems to me more like apples to oranges.

The guy said "quarter 4k"

You are right, '960 x 540' isn't quarter 4k but quarter HD

[VoodooFX]

You are comparing real HD resolution to imaginary "SD" resolution.

[Selur]

Any player will resize to square pixels, so it seems to be more correct than to look at the raw pixels and compare squashed to non-squashed content.
It's probably mood to discuss this since I doubt any of us will agree with the other.
So have fun with this thread.

[VoodooFX]

Your comparison is like you comparing taste of two beer kinds and you are adding vodka to example No.2 because it's darker than example No.1.