Video pre-processing - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 212 Old 08-09-2009, 01:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

This would only affect the horizontal domain, right?

I'm wondering if this is what happened with Paramount's release of Watchmen (I should be posting screencaps tonight in the Blu-ray Software forum). It appears to have the same vertical resolution as the Warner disc, but it's been robbed of the finest 1-pixel vertical-running lines and even has very slight ringing around those areas.

Nope the process I've described entail sub pixel filtering in both x and y. I don't see any ringing on this transfer it's just mightily soft in comparison to the 2k.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 212 Old 08-09-2009, 03:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Nobody is forced to change the aspect ratio. You crop on all 4 sides so the ratio stays the same, if you want that. Top and bottom are often cropped anyway to mask image edge issues (bad edits, hairs etc.).

The ratio doesn't stay the same with a letterboxed 2.35:1 film. When you crop on all 4 sides you're basically zooming in therefor the active picture area is larger within the 16x9 frame.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #93 of 212 Old 08-09-2009, 03:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

The ratio doesn't stay the same with a letterboxed 2.35:1 film. When you crop on all 4 sides you're basically zooming in therefor the active picture area is larger within the 16x9 frame.

Its fine Kram for all the reasons I've stated . It represents a smaller error tolerance than many of the previous stages including the initial capture.

This is 2048x1556 ( or 2048x1152 if its 3 perf) not 2048x1080.

Doing some further work tonight its definitely a crop to 1920 from 2048. The practical difference of this is that most of the cropped area is soft because its at the periphery of the frame and mostly vignetted. Its also well within the tolerance defined by the lineup slate for the feature. I'd take a bet that there was no additional horizontal info on display in the theatrical release vs the BD.

Further to my previous comments I can confirm the crop and resize is exactly the same comparing shots from scenes very far apart in the movie and originated at 3 and 4 perf : 1920 crop and a 0.984 rescale down.

I'd probably revise my description of the transfer: it is softer than the 2k , noticably so in direct comparison to the 2k but I don't see any increase in aliasing or sharpening artifacts. So in those terms its a very clean transfer its just not up to the sharpness of the 2k which I'm surprised and disappointed by

There are obvious artifacts from the component downsampling but the rescale I'm seeing itself may just be down to the filtering on the component downsample or upsampling (in the playback software) stages.

I can do my own 4:2:0 component conversion and back to RGB without displacing the pixels to this level though. I'm obviously not having to deal with any compression though.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #94 of 212 Old 08-09-2009, 03:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

I've never been able to get TMT working on my own computer to see for sure, but many caps that I've seen from others seem inaccurate vs the DirectShow method.

Levels are fine I ran some test patterns through it first and checked the values. I'm comparing 10bit log 2k with jpegs off 8bit 4:2:0 highly compressed video so any variance in color is somewhat moot given the differences already involved.

I am ball park grading the 2k to match the video for easier comparisson. I will not be able to make a direct match without trashing the 2k which kinda defeats the point.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #95 of 212 Old 08-10-2009, 12:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

There are obvious artifacts from the component downsampling but the rescale I'm seeing itself may just be down to the filtering on the component downsample or upsampling (in the playback software) stages.
.

How does luminance alone compare which does not nee to be downfiltered?
mhafner is offline  
post #96 of 212 Old 08-10-2009, 12:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

The ratio doesn't stay the same with a letterboxed 2.35:1 film. When you crop on all 4 sides you're basically zooming in therefor the active picture area is larger within the 16x9 frame.

You are zooming without resampling. Losing edges that often have issues anyway is no big deal. Films are not shot to have relevant detail at the very edges.
mhafner is offline  
post #97 of 212 Old 08-10-2009, 02:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

How does luminance alone compare which does not nee to be downfiltered?

Soft but the grain structure is intact no signs of DNR.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #98 of 212 Old 08-10-2009, 03:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
2048x1556 image of alternating black and white pixels ( worst case scenario for filtering).
Downscale is the sinc filter in Shake

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1249898407

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...1&d=1249898407
LL
LL

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #99 of 212 Old 08-14-2009, 07:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnAd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I wonder if the magic number 0.984 is something to due with the "clean aperture" of 1888x1062? 1888/1920 = 0.9833333

John

My Company - Upsilon Software
Free Projects - DScaler & hcfr fork
JohnAd is offline  
post #100 of 212 Old 08-14-2009, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAd View Post

I wonder if the magic number 0.984 is something to due with the "clean aperture" of 1888x1062? 1888/1920 = 0.9833333

John


You know it could be but I would have thought any edge transition filtering malarkey would have been catered for already by doing a straight 1920 crop out of the 2048.

Unless its something they've borked at the encode.

That's an interesting website you've got in your sig John.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #101 of 212 Old 08-14-2009, 02:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnAd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

You know it could be but I would have thought any edge transition filtering malarkey would have been catered for already by doing a straight 1920 crop out of the 2048.

Unless its something they've borked at the encode.

I agree the resize look crazy, my guess is somebody trying too hard to keep to "the standards" and not letting some tolerance in one area avoid borking some other. I doubt it's an encode thing but it could be, how does the encode process work in practice, who sends what to whom and in what format? My mental picture has an uncompressed 4:2:0 1080p 24ishHz master going off to the next step, is that even close to what really happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

That's an interesting website you've got in your sig John.

Sadly it's not very interesting yet
Once I've got something half decent working then maybe.

John

My Company - Upsilon Software
Free Projects - DScaler & hcfr fork
JohnAd is offline  
post #102 of 212 Old 08-15-2009, 03:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAd View Post

My mental picture has an uncompressed 4:2:0 1080p 24ishHz master going off to the next step, is that even close to what really happens.

I'm not entirely sure where the downsample to 4:2:0 happens. I suspect its handled at the encode from at least a 4:2:2 source. D1 4:2:2 used to be commonly handed to an encoder for dvd generation. It would make sense that they encode from a larger pot into a smaller one unless there are any over-riding advantages to handle the 4:2:0 downsample prior to encoding.

Maybe a compressionist could advise?



Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAd View Post

Sadly it's not very interesting yet
Once I've got something half decent working then maybe.

John

.

Seems like a very interesting and worthwhile project though , look forward to it.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #103 of 212 Old 08-17-2009, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnAd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D; View Post

4:2:2 used to be commonly handed to an encoder for dvd generation. It would make sense that they encode from a larger pot into a smaller one unless there are any over-riding advantages to handle the 4:2:0 downsample prior to encoding.

It would also be interesting to know where in the chain the 3:2 pulldown info is added


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D; View Post

Seems like a very interesting and worthwhile project though , look forward to it.

Thanks

My Company - Upsilon Software
Free Projects - DScaler & hcfr fork
JohnAd is offline  
post #104 of 212 Old 08-17-2009, 07:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAd View Post

It would also be interesting to know where in the chain the 3:2 pulldown info is added

That should be in the encoder, since the actual compressed file is 24P with flags.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #105 of 212 Old 08-17-2009, 08:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
sspears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Sammamish, WA, USA
Posts: 5,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 50
There are many reasons to send 4:2:0 directly into the encoder. One good example is that Cinemacraft CCE applies progressive downsampling on interlaced content. Another is some are using nearest neighbor. E.g. AVIA II and AVIA Pro's YC delay pattern have a half pixel of delay in the pattern itself, which was caused by the encoders downsample. AVIA does not have this problem.

The HD encoders most often accept 4:2:0 as input.

As for inverse telecine, if its an HD encoder, you are sending 24p into the encoder. For Blu-ray you do not need to use telecine flags because you can author as 24p. For HD DVD, and DVD, you have to use telecine flags for 24p content.
sspears is offline  
post #106 of 212 Old 08-17-2009, 09:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnAd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Thanks stacey

Looks like the real world is a bit messy, shouldn't have expected anything less I suppose.

I'm still a bit unclear how the bits get from the grader to the encoder.

I think the process from the encoder to the disc is fairly clear. Getting the image off the film and into digital form seems to be reasonably standard but at the moment based on the above discussion I'm not clear what it is that the grader passes to the next step and how many steps there are before the encoder. It seems that ideally the grader would output uncompressed 4:2:0 1080p, but I suspect the real world is often messier than this ideal.

John

My Company - Upsilon Software
Free Projects - DScaler & hcfr fork
JohnAd is offline  
post #107 of 212 Old 08-17-2009, 08:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChuckZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAd View Post

Thanks stacey

Looks like the real world is a bit messy, shouldn't have expected anything less I suppose.

I'm still a bit unclear how the bits get from the grader to the encoder.

I think the process from the encoder to the disc is fairly clear. Getting the image off the film and into digital form seems to be reasonably standard but at the moment based on the above discussion I'm not clear what it is that the grader passes to the next step and how many steps there are before the encoder. It seems that ideally the grader would output uncompressed 4:2:0 1080p, but I suspect the real world is often messier than this ideal.

John

Someone feel free to intercede if I'm wrong.

To my knowledge, film is typically graded in 2K DPX 10-bit log. The finished look is then (typically) output to tape like HDCAM-SR 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4 or a SAN. From there it can be ingested onto the local encoding machine via capture card as 10-bit 4:2:2 and encoded.
ChuckZ is offline  
post #108 of 212 Old 08-18-2009, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

Someone feel free to intercede if I'm wrong.

To my knowledge, film is typically graded in 2K DPX 10-bit log. The finished look is then (typically) output to tape like HDCAM-SR 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4 or a SAN. From there it can be ingested onto the local encoding machine via capture card as 10-bit 4:2:2 and encoded.

couple of points

The DI is usually 10bit log (DPX fles don't have to be log..or 10bit though) but the film also has to be graded into video colorspace too ( analagous to a telecine in the old days) sympathetic with the film look but compromised accordingly into video.

The video master is not the same as the DI. I've read some comments recently from people thinking they get the DI on BD albeit compressed at 8bit. Apples and Oranges.

They don't technically "capture" the material off HDcam , they just grab the data off the tape ( same as D1 in the early days of dvd.....yuv files I think)

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #109 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 12:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
1:1 crop from the opening seconds of the two Blu-rays of Watchmen


Is the chroma shift an inherent issue with 4:2:0, or is it actually misaligned in the left image?

I'm also wondering about the resolution loss and ringing on the right image, as mentioned earlier. Not sure whether that's OT for this discussion though.
msgohan is offline  
post #110 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 02:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post


Is the chroma shift an inherent issue with 4:2:0, or is it actually misaligned in the left image?

I'm also wondering about the resolution loss and ringing on the right image, as mentioned earlier. Not sure whether that's OT for this discussion though.

Which versions are each from by the way?

chroma1: luminance is clean , color difference channels definitely have filtering issues . I'd say its down to the 4:2:0 downsample being problematic , it may be more visible on this material because of the strong yellow. Its more like a smeary filtering effect than a misalignment.

chroma2 : all channels seem clean but there is ringing on all three so I'd say they added this prior to the downsample to 4:2:0 as the ringing is suitably mushy in the u and v channels.

You get nice results if you combine the y from the first image with the u and v from the second: maybe we should go analogue component and swap the channels around as required from multiple versions

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #111 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 02:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,421
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Left image is USA Blu-Ray (Director's Cut). Right image is UK Blu-Ray (Theatrical Cut). The right image is IMHO resampled in X direction, but not in Y direction. Check out this comparison shot:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...1125/picture:2

It's clear to see (check out the detail in the windows in the middle of the frame) that the USA Blu-Ray is horizontally razor sharp, while the UK Blu-Ray is really soft in comparison. I think we can see here what Mr.D has tried to make clear, namely that cropping the 2K master produces much sharper results than rescaling the image. Unfortunately the USA Blu-Ray has a much lower bitrate and was DNRed. So neither Blu-Ray is really good.
madshi is offline  
post #112 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Left image is USA Blu-Ray (Director's Cut). Right image is UK Blu-Ray (Theatrical Cut). The right image is IMHO resampled in X direction, but not in Y direction. Check out this comparison shot:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...1125/picture:2

It's clear to see (check out the detail in the windows in the middle of the frame) that the USA Blu-Ray is horizontally razor sharp, while the UK Blu-Ray is really soft in comparison. I think we can see here what Mr.D has tried to make clear, namely that cropping the 2K master produces much sharper results than rescaling the image. Unfortunately the USA Blu-Ray has a much lower bitrate and was DNRed. So neither Blu-Ray is really good.


Hmm curious not entirely sure what I'm seeing here.

Apart from the opening logo above the UK version doesn't appear to have any obvious ringing or DNR and has good grain structure. I have to say I prefer it over the mushy US version. I don't really see the horizontal filtering on every shot ( I see it on the windows) and I would have expected it to impact the grain structure to a degree. I'm wondering if its an encoding artifact rather than a resize issue.

If one was a crop and one was a repo I wouldn't expect the transfers to line up pixel for pixel which they seem to so I'm assuming the differences we see between these two are down to the compressionist.

I much prefer the UK transfer overall. I'm assuming no resizing or repoing was done to make these two versions line up with each other in the examples posted?

The issue I was posting about is slightly different as I'm essentially comparing the BD against the original 2k scan.What I'm seeing is that the BD transfer is a 1080p crop out of the 2k not a resize but it also has this tiny weird little non-centred resize.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #113 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 03:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,421
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Apart from the opening logo above the UK version doesn't appear to have any obvious ringing or DNR and has good grain structure. I have to say I prefer it over the mushy US version.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

I don't really see the horizontal filtering on every shot ( I see it on the windows) and I would have expected it to impact the grain structure to a degree. I'm wondering if its an encoding artifact rather than a resize issue.

Possible, I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

I much prefer the UK transfer overall. I'm assuming no resizing or repoing was done to make these two versions line up with each other in the examples posted?

Don't know that, either, the comparison was not done by me.
madshi is offline  
post #114 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 03:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Correct, no manipulation was done to the output from ffdshow aside from converting to RGB and adding the overlay text identifying the versions.

Some more pics I posted in my Watchmen thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post





Note the incredibly slight ringing on the second Paramount image. Also the fact that Warner's resize appears to cause false color patterns in the computer screen.

Anyone know whether the DI is 2k or 4k?

By the way, this reminded me of something that pissed me off a few years ago...




Both are directly copied DVB-S streams, one is from 2006-11-12, and the other 2006-11-18. Sometime in between those dates, the channel started looking like image #2 all the time...

Used to be the best-looking SD channel available around here. Any idea what would cause something like that?
msgohan is offline  
post #115 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 09:57 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

Any idea what would cause something like that?

Short answer: corporate greed. :-/
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #116 of 212 Old 08-19-2009, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChuckZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How is dither pre-processing handled when you have a grainy source? Is it even needed? Does the grain (a sort of dither if you will) affect how the algorithm operates?
ChuckZ is offline  
post #117 of 212 Old 08-20-2009, 12:55 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Mr. D:

Could you evaluate/comment on this article please:

"HD" versus "SD" color space

http://www.glennchan.info/articles/t...olor-space.htm
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #118 of 212 Old 08-20-2009, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Mr. D:

Could you evaluate/comment on this article please:

"HD" versus "SD" color space

http://www.glennchan.info/articles/t...olor-space.htm

What part exactly Lee? Looks reasonable from scanning through it.

digital film janitor
Mr.D is offline  
post #119 of 212 Old 08-20-2009, 04:19 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

What part exactly Lee? Looks reasonable from scanning through it.

Just the overall accuracy - thanks for taking a look at it.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #120 of 212 Old 08-21-2009, 02:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnAd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Hmm curious not entirely sure what I'm seeing here.

It is interesting that the areas of fine white lines in the windows and the areas around the bright lights on the buildings change their overall brightness between the 2 versions, looks to me like a symptom of some processing being done in gamma adjusted space but I'd probably finger the noise processing on the US version.

John

My Company - Upsilon Software
Free Projects - DScaler & hcfr fork
JohnAd is offline  
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off