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