Originally posted by: Karyudo
I happen to think you (MaximRecoil) are almost completely wrong.
It is certainly possible to make an LD transfer look far better than the original LD, and you can improve the quality substantially on an upsample. I mean, if you're going to scale, you'd may as well do it at less than real time with competent filters, rather than let some budget TV try to do it on the fly.
I don't know what you're looking at to say otherwise.
It is impossible to end up with more information than you started with (i.e. your source). "Looks better" = subjective and is not synonymous with higher quality. For example, a 1400 MB MPEG-4 encoded from a 5 or 6 GB MPEG-2 DVD source often looks "smoother" than the original. It is not higher quality than the source however. The source contains all the information you need to make all sorts of different looking versions via processing. The resultant 1400 MPEG-4 does not because of loss. Even if you re-encode to the same bitrate, format and resolution there will be some loss (not much); it is inevitable.I happen to think you (MaximRecoil) are almost completely wrong.
It is certainly possible to make an LD transfer look far better than the original LD, and you can improve the quality substantially on an upsample. I mean, if you're going to scale, you'd may as well do it at less than real time with competent filters, rather than let some budget TV try to do it on the fly.
I don't know what you're looking at to say otherwise.
On the other hand, now that I have read the original poster's reply to my post, I can see the potential benefits of upscaling the image in the initial encode rather than doing it on the fly via hardware stretching.