Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
24th February 2009, 18:52 | #21 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 136
|
Quote:
Spline >= Blackman > Lanczos" - That's in terms of sharpness right? Umm, in terms of sharpness, the default for Spline and Lanczos are pretty identical.. The differences I see are how it effects minor details, especially blurry details. That's actually why I prefer Spline16 over 36/64. It seems to preserve minor details better with almost identical sharpness. -Thanks |
|
24th February 2009, 19:34 | #22 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
Yes, in terms of sharpness. Spline and Lanczos are pretty much identical for all intents and purposes. The biggest difference is spline tends to ring a lot less than lanczos. Also, Spline64 should retain more fine detail than Spline16 when downscaling, and do a better job when upscaling too.
4096x2304 -> 768x432 -> 1920x1080: Lanczos4 Spline64 Both have ringing around the pole. But the spline is more controlled. (Zooming 200% or 300% helps a bit here)
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. Last edited by Sagekilla; 24th February 2009 at 19:43. |
24th February 2009, 21:17 | #23 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 136
|
Quote:
In the end, it just narrows down to what is your preference. Comparing such subtle differences can drive a person crazy, with your face all up in the screen, lol |
|
25th February 2009, 02:29 | #25 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 136
|
Quote:
Spline36 Spline64 Last edited by Typhoon859; 25th February 2009 at 02:34. |
|
25th February 2009, 06:37 | #26 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
Wait, did you upscale it then encode it? Because it looks like you did (and that's the wrong thing to do). Those two images should look nearly identical, but in the bottom left corner there's a lot of differences. If you're comparing resizers, don't encode. Just save the raw frame directly out of AvsP or your GUI of choice as a png.
What you just did is compare how whatever encoder handles spline36 vs spline64, not the actual sharpness.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
25th February 2009, 07:34 | #27 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 136
|
Quote:
|
|
25th February 2009, 07:47 | #28 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
You're missing my point. If you're comparing the sharpness of one resizer to another, you need to do so based on the raw output from the resizers.
What if we decided to sharpen a 720p image with two different resizers, then compressed them as jpgs @ 100 KB for both files? How could you tell that one sharpener does a better job at sharpening? In this case, it would be the one that comes out the crappiest looking, because sharp images tend to take more bits than softer images. If you keep the bitrate the same, then the sharper one is going to lose sharpness and generally turn into a horrible mess compared to the soft one, which will compress nicer. That's fine if you want to compare it when you're encoding, but if you're talking about the properties of the resizers themselves then you shouldn't be encoding them. Plus, if you take into account sharpness/complexity determines image size, the fact that Spline64 "has less details" is completely logical when you consider you're using a fixed bitrate.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
25th February 2009, 08:13 | #29 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 136
|
Quote:
|
|
25th February 2009, 15:43 | #30 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
I mean, if you want to compare how well a resizer does when you're encoding, you're doing it absolutely the right way. I'm just saying that for sharpness comparisons you have to be careful how you do that
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
26th March 2009, 14:09 | #32 | Link |
AviSynth/x264 user
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 149
|
www.sm64.org/div/Bilinear0.png
www.sm64.org/div/Spline360.png 640x480 to 320x240 Spline36 is sharper, but both look good to me. |
8th April 2009, 20:46 | #34 | Link | |
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
Quote:
w/ CoreAVC CUDA doing the decoding, I can spline anything I'd like now mostly SD>720p and 1080p>720p |
|
9th April 2009, 21:02 | #36 | Link | |
Wreaking havoc for years
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 125
|
Quote:
i don't particularly like them because for big images 4k x 6k they get 'lost' in the complex wilderness but for small DVD images they seem to work well. |
|
10th April 2009, 11:53 | #38 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 42
|
Quote:
However, there is a modded 2.5.8 MT version now which is capable of both. |
|
10th April 2009, 20:20 | #40 | Link |
The Crazy Idahoan
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 249
|
I don't get it. Why would you upscale the image before encoding it? If it is to justify the large bitrate, well, tell the encoder to use more bits rather then throw more at the image.
Yeah, I could see it if you are targeting a specific device that doesn't support upscaling/does a crappy job at it. However, most are generally pretty good at it. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|