- Time
- Post link
This forum needs a script that automatically deletes any post you make about adywan.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Info: The Ultimate Super Resolution Technique — Page 2
- Time
- Post link
really no one has an answer i don’t mean to be pushy at all i’m really serious. but anyway what about adywans edit of star wars saga? can they use this or the google raiser upscale method to go to “4k” please answer this i’d really really appreciate it.
No, Google is not going to upscale Adywan’s edits to 4k. When the source is 1080p downscaled to 720p then upscaled to 4k, you won’t gain anything.
- Time
- Post link
Oh great you answered now he’s encouraged to keep asking.
…
Never mind, I forgot that he’ll keep asking no matter what.
- Time
- Post link
Oh great you answered now he’s encouraged to keep asking.
Can you tell me what kind of impact that is going to have on Adywan’s edit
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
It’s probably gonna slow it down a bit, so PM all your complaints to 005.
- Time
- Post link
Mind blown
Would love to see this effort combined with a technique to discover the correct color using multiple sources and Dr Dre’s magic autocolor technique that I wish I could have a copy of. 😉
On my own, I discovered using After Effects, when I wish to color correct something, I can get really close by adjusting the levels with individual controls as long as the histogram of each color has room on either or ideally both sides of it. I just slide the right and left slider to just before the ramp up for each individual color and that gets it close. Then if it is too green or pink or blue, I adjust the center slider a bit until it looks right. It really makes the picture punchy and much more correct in color most of the time unless they intentionally changed it from the original color. This usually needs to be done scene to scene and sometimes if it is a long scene, it needs to be tracked and changed throughout the scene.
- Time
- Post link
I’d never heard of Drizzle before
Awww, and I thought you read my post 😦
😄
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
poita said:
I’ll whip up a quick example for a scene I have multiple prints of.About that before/after demonstration … S T U N N I N G! I knew of this technique (from motion-compensated temporal “frame stacking” – but with the downside of noticeable temporal “grain crawl” at too-wide a range) but never thought to apply it in your manner (for multiple-source frame stacking). Absolutely stunning.
Even still, the blue layer always seems to be the worst hit …
Would any pre-processing (maybe some temporal stacking) help on the worse layer(s), while not negating the source stacking effectiveness?
.
NeverarGreat said:
In this example, there are only about 6 dye cloud centers, meaning that only 6 pixels are assigned values. With enough sources, the entire pixel grid can be filled in. … I’m the 1% inspiration guy …That is excellent (and I love your visualizations)! The interesting thing is that this approach also might be useful in things like up-rez via vector reconstruction (must hit the math books for that one) or sharpening via vector calculus boundary redistribution (more math books).
Oh yeah, normally you would do a ton of pre-processing before stacking, and then more cleanup after.
I literally knocked that out in about 15 minutes, 10 minutes of which was computation time, so it is a poor example, I just wanted to illustrate the technique.
Even doing it quite poorly gave enough of a result to show how it works.
The blue channel is always the noisiest, on film or CCDs, and usually requires the most work. It also is the colour where detail matters the least for the way our eyes work, and can be much softer than the other channels without the softness being perceived by our eyes/minds.
I’ve had a look at the pre-scan of Reel2, there is some great colour in there, but unfortunately a bit of red-blob damage particularly in the second half of the reel. Nothing that can’t be fixed, but annoying that it is there when the film is otherwise in such nice shape.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
Oh yeah, normally you would do a ton of pre-processing before stacking, and then more cleanup after.
I literally knocked that out in about 15 minutes, 10 minutes of which was computation time, so it is a poor example, I just wanted to illustrate the technique.
Even doing it quite poorly gave enough of a result to show how it works.
Poita just open a film restoration school already, you know we’ll all enroll 😃
If your crop is water, what, exactly, would you dust your crops with?
- Time
- Post link
Oh yeah, normally you would do a ton of pre-processing before stacking, and then more cleanup after.
I literally knocked that out in about 15 minutes, 10 minutes of which was computation time, so it is a poor example, I just wanted to illustrate the technique.
Even doing it quite poorly gave enough of a result to show how it works.Poita just open a film restoration school already, you know we’ll all enroll 😃
My knowledge is about 1/10th of what I would like it to be, there are some people out there that really know this stuff.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
double post
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Poita,
I feel you aren’t being completely transparent here. I doubt it’s a coincidence that this is probably the most static shot in the entire film (stays the same for many frames). I doubt you would get those kind of SNR gains with merely averaging multiple captures, but I suspect you also averaged several frames of each capture as well before and after the 1 frame you show.
You cannot sustain this kind of NR throughout the film without some serious DVNR side effects due to tearing and motion compensation errors.
Also, the same frame from multiple captures will have a lot of similar noise from the previous generations. Average a bunch of different captures and you will still be left with the noise of the previous generations. Adjacent frames however will not have the same noise and you will get greater reduction than you would if just using multiple captures.
Don’t get me wrong, this shot looks great, but show the same gains from a frame a few seconds later during the “look sir, droids” pop-up and I’d say you really are magic.
I feel you are feeding a misunderstanding of sampling theory. The reason that Superresolution works on those ccd images is because they have no anti-alias filter before capture. Some of that high-frequency information is captured in the lower frequencies due to folding around the Nyquist. Then, as the camera (or object) moves, that detail can be recovered through upsampling, motion compensating, and averaging (or medianing). I don’t think film however is aliased in the same manner (but I’ve been wrong before).
On top of this, you are drizzling, which is just a fancy name for what reduces to a spatial-only linear filter. This is just a convolution, ie. sharpener. Your comparison should not be to the original denoised frame, but to the exact same denoised image that has been nicely upsized (lanczos or similar).
I love your work, I donated to the cause, but I think you’re giving false hope. I hope you prove me wrong.
love,
-Gary
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
sorry, hit quote instead of edit… again.
- Time
- Post link
I don’t think Poita ever said he wasn’t using multiple frames from the same print - in fact, the stormtrooper is turned slightly in comparison to the grainy frame, indicating that there was averaged movement from multiple frames. It was only an example of a process, after all.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
- Time
- Post link
You cannot sustain this kind of NR throughout the film without some serious DVNR side effects due to tearing and motion compensation errors.
Well to my eye the de-noised frame looks “plasticy”. I suspect it’s because it makes the out of focus objects appear to be more in-focus than they should. That said it has completely stabilised the chroma, which is one of the many issues with the official Bluray and also an issue with the SSE. So if you kept the chroma, and optimised the settings for the luma it should look really good.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
- Time
- Post link
Oh great you answered now he’s encouraged to keep asking.
…
Never mind, I forgot that he’ll keep asking no matter what.
Why won’t go away no one likes a troll troll. Also pardon my French go to hell tiny hands
- Time
- Post link
No, Google is not going to upscale Adywan’s edits to 4k. When the source is 1080p downscaled to 720p then upscaled to 4k, you won’t gain anything.
Then what is this thing here exactly do then in this topic
- Time
- Post link
Oh great you answered now he’s encouraged to keep asking.
…
Never mind, I forgot that he’ll keep asking no matter what.
Why won’t go away no one likes a troll troll. Also pardon my French go to hell tiny hands
Could you use some English instead?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
If you read the text, the drizzling is only on the final images, I did that as an example of what drizzling was (or to use the proper term “Variable Pixel Linear Reconstruction”), as I thought many had probably not heard of it, and this was a discussion about image processing.
All the previous images are without the upscale/drizzle applied. The whole thing was an example of a technique, as I said, we don’t have enough full prints to do it to this level, you would need 20 or more prints to get this level, and not all scenes would work as well as the alignment gets tricky etc. and you can lose detail in the alignment process, so diminishing returns kick in.
It certainly isn’t what I am doing with the movies, I don’t have enough prints, and don’t have enough computational grunt to do the alignment and stacking, that single image used 63GB of RAM to process. Drizzling isn’t likely to be of much use for film captures, but I mentioned it as part of the discussion and applied it to see the results. I make no claims to be magic.
Normally, I wouldn’t have enough prints to do this, I don’t have 30 prints, but what I do have is a reel of dailies of this scene, I also have a reel of dailies from Empire, if I get time I will scan it and show it as well, if it is of interest to people here. The dailies reels have the same scene looped a dozen of more times, which is very handy for this kind of thing. I picked a scene with a static camera as (a) I already had it scanned, and (b) a scene with movement has motion blur which wouldn’t show the effect as clearly.
I used 3 adjacent frames from each dailies repeat, and an two IB prints and an Eastman, they were all colour matched and roughly aligned. I had all of that handy from a prior experiment, so could get an explanation up quickly.
Film does work well with this technique, due to the randomness of the film grain, the film weave means each print is slightly differently positioned, and the photons hit different areas of the grain etc. so if you have enough, you can get back much closer to only having neg grain involved. The film is, in my opinion, under sampled when scanned, and multiple prints and scans lets us recover a lot, and remove a lot of noise.
I’m not trying to peddle hope or anything else here, just joining a discussion of super-resolution and frame stacking with a freely admitted arbitrary example. If anyone has the misconception that we are doing this to the entire film, then it is just that, a misconception.
Where this does come in handy is helping to discover the correct colours without incorporating artefacts such as the yellowing blobs and grain structure, which gives a good colour target when grading, and working out what is dirt/micro-scratches and what is not, which is not always obvious, like those dark spots on the sand, they could easily be mistaken for dirt spots and incorrectly removed.
It is also handy for efforts like Harmy’s and Adywan’s, where they might want to recreate a background plate in far more detail than any single frame allows, like the sand crawler coming over the sand dune, the starry background and planets from the crawls, and many other shots, where they can create a much cleaner version and use that as a basis for the reconstruction.
Having a clean plate we also find really useful to get a more accurate grain analysis to use for de-graining algorithms.
Anyway, it is intended only as a discussion of image processing technique, not as anything specific that I am doing re the restoration of any particular film.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
Oh shit, I mentioned Adywan…
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
If you read the text, the drizzling is only on the final images, I did that as an example of what drizzling was (or to use the proper term “Variable Pixel Linear Reconstruction”), as I thought many had probably not heard of it, and this was a discussion about image processing.
All the previous images are without the upscale/drizzle applied. The whole thing was an example of a technique, as I said, we don’t have enough full prints to do it to this level, you would need 20 or more prints to get this level, and not all scenes would work as well as the alignment gets tricky etc. and you can lose detail in the alignment process, so diminishing returns kick in.
It certainly isn’t what I am doing with the movies, I don’t have enough prints, and don’t have enough computational grunt to do the alignment and stacking, that single image used 63GB of RAM to process. Drizzling isn’t likely to be of much use for film captures, but I mentioned it as part of the discussion and applied it to see the results.Normally, I wouldn’t have enough prints to do this, I don’t have 30 prints, but what I do have is a reel of dailies of this scene, I also have a reel of dailies from Empire, if I get time I will scan it and show it as well, if it is of interest to people here. The dailies reels have the same scene looped a dozen of more times, which is very handy for this kind of thing. I picked a scene with a static camera as (a) I already had it scanned, and (b) a scene with movement has motion blur which wouldn’t show the effect as clearly.
I used 3 adjacent frames from each dailies repeat, and an two IB prints and an Eastman, they were all colour matched and roughly aligned. I had all of that handy from a prior experiment, so could get an explanation up quickly.Film does work well with this technique, due to the randomness of the film grain, the film weave means each print is slightly differently positioned, and the photons hit different areas of the grain etc. so if you have enough, you can get back much closer to only having neg grain involved. The film is, in my opinion, under sampled when scanned, and multiple prints and scans lets us recover a lot, and remove a lot of noise.
I’m not trying to peddle hope or anything else here, just joining a discussion of super-resolution and frame stacking with a freely admitted arbitrary example. If anyone has the misconception that we are doing this to the entire film, then it is just that, a misconception.
Where this does come in handy is helping to discover the correct colours without incorporating artefacts such as the yellowing blobs and grain structure, which gives a good colour target when grading, and working out what is dirt/micro-scratches and what is not, which is not always obvious, like those dark spots on the sand, they could easily be mistaken for dirt spots and incorrectly removed.
It is also handy for efforts like Harmy’s and Adywan’s, where they might want to recreate a background plate in far more detail than any single frame allows, like the sand crawler coming over the sand dune, the starry background and planets from the crawls, and many other shots, where they can create a much cleaner version and use that as a basis for the reconstruction.Having a clean plate we also find really useful to get a more accurate grain analysis to use for de-graining algorithms.
Anyway, it is intended only as a discussion of image processing technique, not as anything specific that I am doing re the restoration of any particular film.
Nice. Thanks for the explanation.
-G
- Time
- Post link
Oh great you answered now he’s encouraged to keep asking.
…
Never mind, I forgot that he’ll keep asking no matter what.
Why won’t go away no one likes a troll troll. Also pardon my French go to hell tiny hands
Could you use some English instead?
I meant why won’t you. You are a bully can you stop bully me and others on here sheesh. Its getting old and pathetic. I feel sorry for you. All you do is pick out others flaws on here. You must be one unhappy person. You could go to a shrink for that you know.
- Time
- Post link
really no one has an answer i don’t mean to be pushy at all i’m really serious. but anyway what about adywans edit of star wars saga? can they use this or the google raiser upscale method to go to “4k” please answer this i’d really really appreciate it.
The simple answer is yes. As g-force noted SR really works best with telecines, and the chip in your TV will probably do a job that is just as good if not better anyway with Adywan’s edit.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
- Time
- Post link
Would this do any good for laserdisc captures? (i.e. the neglected, unaltered version of Millennial Garbage Movie '98)
Seeking only the most natural looking colors for Star Wars '77
- Time
- Post link
Oh great you answered now he’s encouraged to keep asking.
…
Never mind, I forgot that he’ll keep asking no matter what.
Why won’t go away no one likes a troll troll. Also pardon my French go to hell tiny hands
Could you use some English instead?
I meant why won’t you. You are a bully can you stop bully me and others on here sheesh. Its getting old and pathetic. I feel sorry for you. All you do is pick out others flaws on here. You must be one unhappy person. You could go to a shrink for that you know.
I’m good but thanks for your concern.