Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfman
Beauty is always on the eye of the beholder
Beauty is always *in* the eye of the beholder.
|
Thanks, Wolfman. I have never learnt well when to use which.
In my mother language there is not such distinction.
Quote:
|
RE the resizing.. it is impossible to **retain** more than 100% of anything
|
I guess you mean the "Detail Kept" table. You are right. It is somewhat confusing. The values are listed compared to Bilinear. If I set the values with respect to Lanczos=100%, Bilinear would be 87%. Maybe it would be more precise and lead to less confusion.
Actually, my definition of "detail" there is quite loose: it is just the resulting BR of the same q-based clip encoded with different resizers.
The idea was merely to show the impact of all of them.
However, and this is an interesting (though somewhat religious) topic, resizing
can indeed keep more than 100% of detail.
Suppose you have an Anamorphic source. If you expand the anamorphic effect correctly to widen the source, you have to interpolate the missing pixels, which you can do well with a good resizer.
You create information where you had not any.
Some would qualify this just a form of modern art, but the output looks quite good, and better than the traditional height reduction used most of the time.