I am attempting to upload a nice XL2 screen shot that was uprezzed to 1080p. I filmed a bit at the normal settings 24p 16x9 1/48. I then exported the footage as a targa sequence, uprezzed the footage in the Photozoom program to 1920x1080 using the amazing patented process they have then exported a PNG sequence of the new sized images. Went into After Effects, applied color correction, color curves, etc. and grain reduction. By applying the fixes and correction to the much larger image, I can get an amazing looking image. I then render and export as a PNG sequence into Premier Pro and simply scale down the 1920x1080 image to regular SD 720x480. Ends up being an amazing looking picutre.

Now trying to figure out how to include a screen shot in this thread...

Can anyone give me quick instructions to imbed a screenshot in the post?

I don't think you can - at the bottom in that little box that says what you can and can't do, it says you can't (in my account anyway). However, I'm interested to see what it looks like - could you email it to me?
thanks

I am uprezzing some XL2 to 720p and it is holding up great...



ash =o)

Hey Devon and Ash,

Do you have another site where you can post your XL2 shots or footage. I would be interested in seeing the uprezzed stuff also.

I should be able to email you a few pictures as soon as I get home. I have found the key for great footage is to uprez in the Photozoom program and THEN apply all grain reduction and color correction/curves. I have found that you are applying the fixes to an image with a lot more information b/c of the proprietary way Photozoom uprezzes the targa or PNG files. I have found this especially true when using the grain reduction in After Effects. I can acheive a very nice image. You then export the image sequence back into your NLE (PPro for me) as a PNG sequence (lossless) and then just resacle the uprezzed footage down.

I realize this is subjective, but I swear going through those steps (and it does add two extra renders, but lossless), gives me 15% better picture quality. Call me crazy, but that's what I'm seeing.

What's your email address?

mine's khalil220@sympatico.ca

Andrew: I will try and fire an email out to you tonight. I am a little swamped, but should be able to get it to you. If you don't get it from me tonight, look for it Thursday. A screen shot is a good example, but the footage in motion (not compressed for email) is the real way to be convinced.

I'm getting anxious!!

very interested in seeing the finished thing!

Hey guys, Devon sent my the screenshot and it looks pretty good to me. Only thing is, and I mentioned it to him, is it looks a bit soft, but I think that's more because of motion blur than anything else. Other than that, it looks great.

Have you considered trying Red Giant Software's InstantHD (http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthd.html) to scale (uprez) video? It seems to be similar to Algolith (I tried an early version of Algolith and was impressed by the results but it was s-l-o-o-o-w) but at only $99 it sounds like a geat deal and might offer an alternative to the Photozoom Pro method.

Just a quick question:

Why would you want to 'uprez' a 720x480 image to HD resolution? Technically, how would this improve perceived image quality?

Not disbelieving... I am just curious!


Jeff :)

Jeff: Good question and the same one I asked when I first tried. It is logical to wonder why going from SD to HD and then back to SD would make any noticable difference. My only response is that I only do this because I've found that applying my color correction/curves and grain reduction to the HD image the plugins seem to work better. My guess is that there are a lot more pixels to work with. So then when I scale the image back down it looks better than if I applied the same plugins to the SD image.

Anyone know why that might be? Is my assumption regarding more data/pixels correct?

Jeff: Good question and the same one I asked when I first tried. It is logical to wonder why going from SD to HD and then back to SD would make any noticable difference. My only response is that I only do this because I've found that applying my color correction/curves and grain reduction to the HD image the plugins seem to work better. My guess is that there are a lot more pixels to work with. So then when I scale the image back down it looks better than if I applied the same plugins to the SD image.

Anyone know why that might be? Is my assumption regarding more data/pixels correct?

I don't know either. But, I went to the Instant HD link above and in their list of uses, the last one is exactly what you are doing. SD uprez to HD, then back to SD for better quality. So, maybe you really are seeing better images.

-gb-

Just a quick question:

Why would you want to 'uprez' a 720x480 image to HD resolution? Technically, how would this improve perceived image quality?

Not disbelieving... I am just curious!


Jeff :)

Some of the more prestigious film festivals will only screen your film if it is on actual film or if it's in High Def.

I'm facing this possibility myself and am wondering if we could devote a thread to this. Not only do-it-yourself methods but also what the best way to uprezz is if money is not an issue.

I get quite good results just from using After Effects and Magic Bullet Deartifacting plus a selective sharpening method.

No-Sharpening:
http://www.bargus.org/720p.jpg

Regular Unsharp Mask:
http://www.bargus.org/720ps.jpg

Selectively Sharpened:
http://www.bargus.org/720pss.jpg

I didn't get any better result going up to 720p for processing then back down than just sharpening at SD res (and it was far quicker):

No-Sharpening:
http://www.bargus.org/576p.jpg

Selectively Sharpened:
http://www.bargus.org/576pss.jpg

Quick question: I have Magic Bullet (at least in PPro) why isn't the deartifacting showing up in my After Effects?

You mean the plugin? If you've got it working in Premiere I'm assuming you've got the editors edition, I don't think that version supports After Effects. You need the suite.