Overclock.net banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
but but but, NCIS does it!
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: HaXXoR

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
Nah. You can't make something out of nothing. The only way I think this is possible is by hiring experts at video restoration, which is way too expensive and time consuming.
For example, if you have an MP3 file of 320kbps, you can re-encode it down to any rate below that, but encoding above that won't improve quality; just make the filesize bigger.
And if you try resizing SD video to HD size, you'll get really pixellated video.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,272 Posts
Quote:


The only way I think this is possible is by hiring experts at video restoration, which is way too expensive and time consuming.

Video restoration is fancy speak for "we cleaned the film, then we used new equipment to digitize it"

Other than that, video restoration, in the sense you're talking about, doesn't exist. There are tricks to make upsized video look somewhat better, but you can't make it HD or something.

Other forms of "restoration" are really simple things like adjusting contrast, colors, tweaking lighting, removing grain, etc... hardly time consuming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Coma
View Post

Video restoration is fancy speak for "we cleaned the film, then we used new equipment to digitize it"

Other than that, video restoration, in the sense you're talking about, doesn't exist. There are tricks to make upsized video look somewhat better, but you can't make it HD or something.

Other forms of "restoration" are really simple things like adjusting contrast, colors, tweaking lighting, removing grain, etc... hardly time consuming.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html
I doubt the moon landing had HD cameras.
Their tape for the moon landing got accidentally erased, so they hire expert video restoration guys to do it.
They actually partially restored it, and in HD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
You can use sophisticated algorithms that can fill in those extra pixels through interpolation and a huge range of techniques, but you can never bring back any of the "true" data that was there originally. Why would someone bother? To control exactly where the scaling is done.

Say you have a 640x480 video that you want scaled to to 1440x1080. Rather than let a media player do the task poorly in real-time, you can let the video be processed and upscaled by complex software that uses multiple passes and does a fairly good job. The reason is so the display/player sees it's native video size. Though nowadays there is dedicated hardware for upscaling with the quality and complexity of multiple passes, but in the real-time constraints of the dirty approach.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackm0d View Post
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html
I doubt the moon landing had HD cameras.
Their tape for the moon landing got accidentally erased, so they hire expert video restoration guys to do it.
They actually partially restored it, and in HD.
It's not HD though. They just cleverly filled in spaces to make it SEEM like HD.

If you see that a compressed stream is "ABDEGH", we can use a number of techniques to infer that the uncompressed data is "ABCDEFGH". Sure there's more information there, but to say we've better defined the original data is not correct. It could have just as easily been "ABXDEYGH".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,272 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by hackm0d View Post
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html
I doubt the moon landing had HD cameras.
Their tape for the moon landing got accidentally erased, so they hire expert video restoration guys to do it.
They actually partially restored it, and in HD.
It's not HD. I could take any video and resize it to any resolution I'd like, but that doesn't mean the effective resolution is that high.

It's no better than a VHS, and since they cropped the head switching noise from the bottom, it probably has less resolution than the original tape. It was just deinterlaced, antialiased, degrained and had the contrast reduced so it didn't look all blown out.

Also, I wouldn't say it got erased, since... you know, they worked from a tape. Maybe it fell apart and they put the tape in another mechanism - like you would do to a damaged hard drive where only the mechanism was damaged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-bro View Post
It's not HD though. They just cleverly filled in spaces to make it SEEM like HD.
They didn't do that either, they just resized it. The only thing that seems HD about it is the video resolution, and that's it. It has no high frequencies at 1080p, which is what defines HD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSF-Foxhound View Post
Isn't there algorithms that can double the pixels and stuff like that?

(double and fill in)
Yes, but they're not much better than normal resizing. These algorithms are used for deinterlacing - you take half the lines, and you interpolate the rest (you "fill in" the empty lines). Normal resizing is similar, except deinterlacing algorithms usually do AA too which makes them look better.

I've never seen a good commercial deinterlacing job, and this one isn't either. At 1080p the entire thing is full of aliasing. The best deinterlacing algorithms right now are those that use motion compensation to protect from bobbing motion as well as edge-directed interpolation. As far as video is concerned... commercial solutions are worse than free solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by hackm0d
View Post

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html
I doubt the moon landing had HD cameras.
Their tape for the moon landing got accidentally erased, so they hire expert video restoration guys to do it.
They actually partially restored it, and in HD.

They also used film wich can be made as big as you want. And back then hollywood movies were shot wider than any wide-screen tv we have today. However when its digital, you can't add data you don't already have.

EDIT: just saw the time of post...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,272 Posts
It was not film, but VHS
There's head switching noise in the comparison shots...
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top