Uprezzed?

[Gerald Baillgergeau]

So what are the actual steps to uprezz in AE? Which filter/effect is used?....etc.

[Graeme Nattress]

It's not a filter or an effect - just adjust the scale parameter of that layer. be sure to turn on high quality for that layer (the little jagged line that turns smooth when you click on it next to the layer name)

There are specialist software programs that will do better - check out Algolith for a plugin for, Shake, I think that is meant to be better.

Graeme

[Giroud Francois]

to Dennis H.
Uprez is working fine in only certain conditions.
for example, you should at least multiply the size image by a factor that has some meaning regarding what you will do.
for example just doubling each pixel and then dividing by two can be considered like a null operation.
I think a factor between 2.5 and 4 is a good start.
That way, fine details receive more pixel and sharpening filter can do better job.
Depending the math you use (bilinear, bicubic to name a few) you will get a more or less blurred picture. This can be positive when trying to smooth or antialias the image or a pain while trying to get more pixel for a bigger picture.
Anyway uprez by itself is not useful, it is only the base to start something with a specific result in mind (especially if you go back to the original resolution), so the tools you will apply after uprezzing will decide the result, no the uprez.
A nice way to test is to uprez only a picture and do the job into photoshop so you can see and zoom on the result.

[Gerald Baillgergeau]

So if i was to scale my layer to let's say (2048X1538/ aspect ratio 4:3) then add a sharpen filter and then export the footage @ (720X480/ ratio 4:3) will that get the desired effect? Please forgive my limited knowledge on this issue. I find this uprezz thing interesting

[Giroud Francois]

you are right, the process you describe will improve the picture BUT, you need to revert to the original size in a different codec than the one you start .
Probably you will start with DV codec that is pretty poor compression. after uprez, you will get losless compression pictures (like BMP) and the processing on it should improve them.
If you revert back to DV codec, the quality gained will be probably mostly lost by the DV compression except for special FX (like removing cable, blue screen, matte painting) where it works well.
Since "almost" is not "all" you could still be happy with the result.
It is up to you to decide that is why, trying on a picture only, can help because you can export it as still picture on your DV and compare.
It would be good to save into a better codec (HuffyHuv , Mjpeg 4:2:2?).
For sure if you need to tape the result and got nothing else than a DV recorder, there is no choice.

[Eric MacIver]

Do you know of a good pro-level uprezzing and chroma enhancement filter or technique specifically for Adobe After Effects?

I'd like to uprezz and chroma enhance my footage before cutting to DVD.

Thanks!

An upres is also known as an online. The only way to uprez DV source footage is if it was captured in a FCP offline or Avid Xpress Pro 15:1 res. This is called offline, the video quality is poor but storage is saved for capturing the most footage. When you upres the DV timeline you delete the offline media and recapture it at online res (for DV25 it is a 5:1 native).

Also Betacam SP is an 1:1 uncompressed analog 4:2:2 signal vs. DV which is 5:1 digital 4:1:1, the better quality is the Betacam SP! DV looks to the eye to be as good as SP because of it’s digital sharpness unfortunately artifacting is a byproduct of the lossy compression. Keying in DV is also difficult due to lack of color info. Also graphics and titles look poor in DV25.

FYI There is no such thing as an upres plugin & if you work in AE you sould be working at full res anyway.

:)

[Eric MacIver]

These guys are talking about taking your native 720x480 footage and increasing its resolution to an even higher number using software that analyzes it to provide a better "blow-up" than normal. So when the software does that, you can then shrink your footage back down to 720x480 and have a better looking picture then you began with.

I was hoping someone knew of a 3rd party company that made a plugin for Adobe After Effects to do that.

How can this be done to enhance the quality of DV if you don't have the extra pixel information for a blow up to start with? You could film out to 35mm and telecine to Digi Beta or HD, but this is expensive and why not shoot on Digi Beta or HD to start with?

You could also up convert to HD with hardware or software like FCP HD color correct and down convert back to DV, but you will always be stepping on the compression or needing to render. DV is DV and it's not going to get any better, you have a standard def compressed signal with limited color info. That is why DV format is relatively inexpensive.

Also try this, put your video on track 1 of your NLE or AE and then put the same footage above it on Trk 2 and experiment with the opacity and transfer modes modes, this may yield an outcome you are looking for.

[Eric MacIver]

You'd choose miniDV over HD or Beta for financial reasons, and increasing the picture quality would be done for artistic reasons. However, to answer your question on how it could help to uprezz - I've used software that does things like frame and line interpolation, for things like converting interlaced footage to progressive.

That software takes the every-other line and every-other frame data inside its algorithms to build a progressive frame. I would think that if someone used similar technology in a very complex and skilled way, that they could build a plug-in that (though it would likely be very processor intensive) would be able to interpolate your footage to expand its size without much if any loss of detail (within limits of course). If that could be done, theoretically there would then be more image detail to work with (what was added by the plug-in) and therefore, scaling the image back down to normal size may in fact produce a sharper looking image.

Affter Effects and photoshop do this to a degree, but not well, and I wasn't aware of anyone that did. This thread led me to believe perhaps someone does know of software that does that, which if it exists, I'd love to see :)

Of course, everything I said is conjecture and I could be completely wrong in my assumptions.

[Rafael Cruz]

Erick Yablon thanks for your informative posts i also want to ask if as you said that beta sp is a higher format than dv let say that i get a sp rec deck hook up in my computer if i have a dv footage thats 720*480 would it benefit mmy picture if i uprez to lets say 2048X1538 run a coplue correction filters on it and then resize it to 720*486 (thats sp res) and record it on the sp deck directly? or the results would be the same if i choose to tranfer dv to sp directly and let the extra 6x empty? thanks

[Graeme Nattress]

Erick said "Also Betacam SP is an 1:1 uncompressed analog 4:2:2 signal vs. DV which is 5:1 digital 4:1:1, the better quality is the Betacam SP!"

which is false. SP is not uncompressed. It is bandwidth limited to a lower resolution than DV and DigiBeta. It is not 4:2:2 - because the chroma bandwidth is also limited to about 1/4 of full resolution luma. Just because people capture it uncompressed 4:2:2 does not mean that SP is that!!!

If you're dubbing DV to SP, just ignore the 6 "missing" lines. Doing anything else will reduce quality.

I really like the concept of uprezzing DV to HD resultion, but I have great difficulty accepting that downrezzing it again is going to introduce any great benefit.

Graeme

DV vs. Betacam SP: 4:1:1 vs. 4:2:2, Artifacts and Other Controversies:

http://www.chumpchange.com/parkplace/video/dvpapers/dv-beta.htm


The Information above is provided for everyone to make his or her own educated decision on which format is more robust and which provides a better quality video signal for there production and post production requirements keeping in mind performance/cost ratio.


“The DV format offers a virtually unbeatable performance/cost ratio” this may be true but DV has definite limitations in post and that is a fact, from artifacts to chroma keying, other wise you guy would not be trying to, as you call it “upress” a DV signal.

Here is a question, if both formats had the same acquisition and post expense, which would you choose to use?

[Graeme Nattress]

What I'm working on in uprezzing DV up to HD, which is no trivial task... but it's made easier by the nature of DV in that it might have low colour sampling, but you always know where those sample are and how they're spacially arranged.

And interesting (and old) that article is, it doesn't tell you any different to my comments that SP is bandwidth limited, and has as bad chroma as DV (but fuzzy rather than sharp). If you blur the chroma from DV it looks like chroma from SP.

And if I had a camera for which I could put on the back an SP back or a DVCAM back, I'd put a DVCAM back on it every day of the week. But now we're really getting OT.

Graeme

your trying to make a skateboard into a formula 1 race car.