|
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Dec 21 2013, 12:36 PM |
 |
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
Thanks! For those who don't want to download 500 MB of comparison here's one frame from it:
http://stuff.thedeemon.com/test_416nnedi.png
http://stuff.thedeemon.com/test_416sr.png
One can see that SR version is just a little bit sharper, but generally the same. Because this is a cartoon so there are no inherent interesting details that could be restored, just monochrome areas and smooth lines, where NNEDI is doing a good job too. Now you can try with a natural video where there is some texture. |
|
| jpsdr |
| Posted: Dec 22 2013, 09:19 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 20490
Joined: 23-December 06
|
I was hopping it may help at least on backgrounds, where there is more texture than characters, but i've not been able to see any differences.
So, in my specific case, as i'm only working on this kind of video, there is no real benefit in SR2 compared to nnedi3 ? |
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Dec 23 2013, 10:39 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
For cartoons like this - yes, intra-frame resizers like NNEDI will suffice. |
|
| jpsdr |
| Posted: Dec 24 2013, 10:33 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 20490
Joined: 23-December 06
|
Ok, thanks. |
|
| evropej |
| Posted: Dec 29 2013, 06:40 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 514
Member No.: 26523
Joined: 28-November 09
|
I did revisit this subject just for a bit and found out that the filter does do a really good job in a lot of places.
But, from the example you posted, you can also see some nasty artifacts which are created.
The biggest one, top of frame pixels when panning up ( see also your image you posted ).
I am guessing its because its doing temporal interpolation, good for slow and bad for fast movies.
Side notes, sr is doing noise reduction and sharpening.
The image you posted has color correction as well.
|
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Jan 3 2014, 08:39 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
| QUOTE | | Side notes, sr is doing noise reduction and sharpening. |
It may look so, but it's a side effect really. Its intra-frame resampling is just a bit sharper than Lanczos and additional high frequency details from neighbor frames make image look sharper as well. Noise is mostly preserved, unfortunately.
| QUOTE | | The image you posted has color correction as well. |
Which one?
To my knowledge SR doesn't do any color correction at all. If would be a bug if it did. |
|
| evropej |
| Posted: Jan 3 2014, 06:22 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 514
Member No.: 26523
Joined: 28-November 09
|
When I imported the video and took a screenshot, the colors were not the same- this is why I said there was post processing done.
When I look at close details, I can see there is either smoothing or noise reduction done in order to obtain the image you posted or the image I process.
Either way, the end result is pretty good.
|
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Jan 4 2014, 08:26 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
Which video are you talking about?
I think the difference is caused by different decoders used. |
|
| evropej |
| Posted: Jan 6 2014, 03:16 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 514
Member No.: 26523
Joined: 28-November 09
|
The video you posted. I had to install custom codec to be able to play that in vdub. |
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Jan 6 2014, 12:02 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
bjorn.avi?
It's compressed with Lagarith, a lossless codec, so the difference shouldn't be caused by decoder unless you have a weird one...
Can you post a frame here? One where you see different color? |
|
| evropej |
| Posted: Jan 6 2014, 04:53 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 514
Member No.: 26523
Joined: 28-November 09
|
I don't have all the files right now, I re-image my drive frequently. I am not sure if I converted the file before viewing it on vdub either. Water under the bridge at this point. |
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Jan 14 2014, 03:49 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
Owners of this VirtualDub plugin can now get for free AviSynth plugin too:
http://www.infognition.com/super_resolution_avisynth/
Now it's possible to watch upsized movies without saving to a file. |
|
| meowmeow |
| Posted: Jan 14 2014, 06:35 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 98
Member No.: 37160
Joined: 21-September 13
|
| QUOTE (pookien @ Jan 14 2014, 03:49 AM) | | Now it's possible to watch upsized movies without saving to a file. |
I'd just open player in full screen.
x264 using PSY techniques to sharpen motion pictures. Filters can only add more garbage into this matter. |
|
| pookien |
| Posted: Jan 14 2014, 08:48 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 24784
Joined: 30-December 08
|
This plugin also uses motion information.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik any decoder (including x264) provides video in fixed resolution - the one it was encoded. When you open your player in full screen the player uses either bilinear (default in MPC) or bicubic (default in VLC now) resampling which is not that good. |
|
| meowmeow |
| Posted: Jan 14 2014, 11:33 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 98
Member No.: 37160
Joined: 21-September 13
|
| QUOTE (pookien @ Jan 14 2014, 08:48 AM) | | This plugin also uses motion information. |
As denoise filters do. But that'll destroy "psy" as it's intended for human eyes to see picture in motion - not individual frames - to give impression of a more sharpen picture than actual. Simple 2D resize would do less harm. Unless temporal resizer knows how's x264 psy works exactly... |
|
