Star Wars GOUT in HD using super resolution algorithm (* unfinished project *) — Page 8

No, I DO get your point, I just don't see more true detail, I just see the illusion of detail by increased micro-contrast in the grain structure. Give de-graining>>processing>>re-graining a shot, you might be surprised as to the difference. ;)

Although the degraining may help (or not), I think the idea that the increased detail in for example the edges of Obi-Wan's hood are simply "micro-contrast in the grain structure" to be pretty unconvincing:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121822

In one of the comparisons for Leia's face for example you can actually see the blood veins in her eyes, and wrinkles in her face, which are actually not visible in the original resolution GOUT (but are visible in the SE blu ray):

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121736

Or the detail in the stormtrooper's eyes:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121755

These real details are clearly visible in both the super resolution upscale, and the SE blu ray, but not in the GOUT.

So I would say if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck... :-)

DrDre said:

@dickalan when I click on your link it just goes to collider.com

 Oops I meant to link to the StarWars EP7 Script from Jason Flemyng's Instagram. 

http://makingstarwars.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Flem1-1.jpg

http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-7-script-image-jason-flemyng/

Based on the wiki it's potentially possible? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superresolution#/media/File:An_example_of_super_resolution_with_still_RAW_photo.jpg

@ Laserdisc Man

Here's the PAL sample upscaled with super resolution v3:

Update: clip no longer available

and a screenshot comparison for frame 10 between super resolution v1 and v3:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121899

It's clear the PAL version of the GOUT has much less detail in the source.

@ dickalan

Hahaha, I'm afraid you would need multiple photo's for that to work.

@ RU.08

Although I see your point, it is not correct to say the super resolution algorithm combines flat detailed frames. It combines low resolution frames with depth, using statistical measures to determine the similarity between elements in the different frames. These elements have depth, so the final combined frame has depth. It probably is true that it is not possible to perfectly capture our sense of depth in statistical measures. It is also true that similar statistical measures are used to compress the original master to the dvd format, so the idea that the dvd compression somehow retains all the depth, while the super resolution completely destroys it to me seems an exaggeration. 

@ Laserdisc Master

I don't think it is correct to say super resolution relies on artifacts. It reconstructs details from multiple frames to construct a true HD frame that is much closer to the original HD frame than most single frame upscale methods are capable of (as is evidenced in a large number of scientific papers). It is true that the reconstruction process is not perfect and will result in artifacts. However, the same is true for any upscale method. What you're saying is you prefer maintaining original shapes in the low res original and adding the illusion of detail, to imperfectly reconstructing actual detail. I prefer the latter ;-). 

Anyways, it's been an interesting discusion. Thanks!

ps. I'm on a train right now, so I can't see your screenshot comparison on my mobile. I will take a look later today.

I'm processing the raw super resolution upscale now with an advanced filter to get rid of the excess noise, while retaining the reconstructed detail. So, tomorrow the first screenshots should be available here.

@ Laserdisc Master

MagicUp + GrainPlate looks good. You should try it on the NTSC GOUT, which has a lot more detail. I will try to send you a clip sometime during the next days.

@ RU.08 & Laserdisc Master

Although I'm sure you're right to a certain extend, the process of combining the frames is not as straightforward as you seem to suggest. In principle the differences in the elements of the frames due to differences in depth are taken into account (as are lighting issues, scale issues, and a number of others). The reconstruction is a statistical prediction on what the actual high res frame should look like, combining information from different frames in a non-linear way. This process will by definition be imperfect and have a cost as you say. The cost may be loss of depth, but, depending on the source material, may also lead to undesired depth enhancement in some places.

There is a misconception that super resolution is all about adding micro-detail. Although this certainly is one of the aspects that makes it a powerful technique, it's main objective is to get a more accurate representation of the high resolution frame. In doing so it reveals more micro detail, but also removes many of the artifacts created while compressing and downscaling the original to a lower resolution. You can get hung up on maintaining shapes in the low resolution frame (sorry Laserdisc Master ;-)), but this assumes these shapes are good representations of the original high res material, which is not necessarily true.

In my opinion combining the information from different imperfectly compressed low res frames to reconstruct the actual shapes and depth of elements in the original high res frame (whether they be micro details or larger shapes), is to be preferred to smoothly interpolating a single imperfectly compressed low res frame, which by definition contains much less information about the actual shape and depth of objects visible in the individual low res frame. 

To quash any discussion about whether actual detail has been added by super resolution v3, here's a screenshot comparison that shows the super resolution v3 and the scaled difference between super resolution v3 and theAvisynth Spline64 Resize:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121938

If the added detail was "micro contrast in the grain structure", the added detail should be random, since film grain is random. As we can see Obi-Wan and Luke's shape in the difference image, this is very clearly not the case. 

Also, both Luke and the background are out of focus, as the camera is focused on Obi-Wan. As there are hardly any details in out of focus film, no details should be added in those areas, as is the case in this example. 

@ Laserdisc Master

I would be very interested to see what MagicUpSR would do for the NTSC GOUT. Hope to get a sample to you soon. I was very surprised to see how much worse the PAL GOUT is compared to NTSC, despite the higher resolution of PAL. 

The post-processed Super Resolution GOUT Star Wars is finished. Here are the first screenshot comparisons. I have to say it looks amazing, aside from some aliasing issues present in the source material. I never expected it to look this good...

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121967

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121970

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121971

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121972

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121973

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121976

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121978

See the reconstructed detail in Vader's mask in the last comparison.

Wow. I've looked at most of your screenshot comparisons so far. But that last one is really nice looking.

Well, you have brought out more detail, but this really highlights the grain in the GOUT (not film grain, but video noise that looks like film grain). This process also didn't seem to fix the occasional jagged edges where the pixels show up. But very nice result all the same.

Yes, it does look like a film scan in bad need of cleaning, but I guess that's precisely what the state of the GOUT was back in 1993. These defects were not visible on Laserdisc, but certainly come out now.

However, this is not a restoration job. The task I set myself was to reconstruct the high definition master of the GOUT. This will of course not result in a perfect representation of the three films, but it is one way of obtaining a high definition version of the original trilogy. As far as I'm concerned that more or less what's been achieved (aside from some imperfections like aliasing). 

There are other people on this forum who are far more qualified to perform some sort of restoration.