DrDre

First comparison upscale NTSC GOUT. The difference for the first frame is very small (hair and eyes), however for the second frame the reconstructed detail is more substantial, which is particulary visible for Darth Vader's helmet. 

Frame 1:

Avisynth Spline64Resize vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118947

Frame 2:

Avisynth Spline64Resize vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118951

@You_Too 

Here is a comparison of two frames between the Avisynth Spline64Resize and super resolution for the Star Wars blu ray. As before the 1080p sample was dowscaled to 540p, and then upscaled back to 1080p.

Frame 1:

1080p original vs Avisynth Spline64Resize:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118932

1080p original vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118497

Avisynth Spline64Resize vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118935

Frame 2:

1080p original vs Avisynth Spline64Resize:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118936

1080p original vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118506

Avisynth Spline64Resize vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118938

It seems to me that the super resolution upscale is much more detailed. The Avisynth Spline64Resize upscale looks more more blurry. 

The super resolution upscale of the NTSC version of Star Wars is indeed looking much better than the PAL version. Much more detail is recovered due to the obviously better source material. Clips coming soon...

@intruder I haven't yet looked in detail at the results after a scene change. I'm pretty sure it won't be as good, but by how much I don't know. Since we are dealing with commercial software the precise way they implement the super resolution concept is not known. It is one of the fastest implementations though, with upscaling speeds that approach real time.

@towne32 The lables are correct. Any upscaling algorithm will have some artifacts. Some of the "details" reconstructed will be phony details caused by apparent structure in noise. Whether these are acceptable I guess is a matter of taste. In the end it's all about the improvement compared to the low resolution version, and to what extend you can approach the 1080p original. Personally I think the amount of detail that is reconstructed is pretty impressive, and that it is a massive improvement over the bicubic upscale. All things considered, I find the artifacts to be pretty minor. 

@LaserDisc Master I used handbrake to downscale the 1080p original using the h264 codec at 8000kps.  

No problem, I will upscale the blu ray and then downscale it back to 1080p and will hopefully have a sample by next week.

Thanks, I'm working on upscaling the NTSC GOUT. It's looking pretty good. Star Wars is being upscaled as we speak, and Empire is next in line. 

You could try that, but I would say that a 1080p video from a true 4K source will always be better than one from a super resolution 4K upscale. Although you can reconstruct a good part of the detail with super resolution, some information is always lost in the downscale that can never be retrieved. The 4K upscale from 1080p would contain more detail than the 1080p original, though. 

@lpd You can apply the algorithm to the 1080p original. In that case you would get a 4K ultra high definition video. I would expect it would be about as accurate to the true 4K film (if it were ever released) as the 1080p upscale is to the true original 1080p transfer, provided the 1080p transfer is of good enough quality.

I guess once the powers that be decide to give us the blu ray's of the theatrical editions, this is the next project in line: a 4K upscale for those of us with a UHD TV. 

The great thing is that anyone can try it for themselves, and it's done in a few hours. The infognition software has a free demo for 30 days with full functionality. 

Here is another screenshot comparison. From these examples it is very clear the super resolution is able to reconstruct texture in the skin and clothes, hair, eye lashes and other details. To say that it is only acts as a noise filter is shortchanging many years of scientific research, in my opinion. 

1080p original vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118506

Precise bicubic (A = -0.75) vs super resolution

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118507

1080p original vs precise bicubic

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118822

1080p original vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118497

Precise bicubic (A = -0.75) vs super resolution:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118500

1080p original vs precise bicubic (A = -0.75) 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118821

Here is a test of the super resolution upscaling on the 2011 Star Wars blu ray. The original sample is 1080p and has been resized to 540p at 8000kps. Subsequently the lower resolution sample has been upscaled to 1080p with the super resolution algorithm.

Update: there is an audio synching problem with the video files. I will fix them and put them back up.

Below are some screenshot comparisions between the original 1080p, the super resolution upscale, and the precise bicubic upscale.

Here is a sample of the PAL GOUT upscale SR-v2.

Update: Clips removed to make space for new clips.

Today I will also start upscaling the NTSC version of the GOUT. As You_too said, it apparently has more detail than the PAL version, and it's therefore better upscaling material. It will also provide for a fair comparison with Team Blu's impressive results.

Of course, if you can send me a clip I'll run it through the algorithm.

For those interested in finding out why multi-frame super resolution is possible, the first chapter of this phd thesis provides some explanations:

http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/publications/papers/pickup08.pdf

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

I will post a few clips of the super resolution v2 soon.

I'm in the process of downscaling a clip from the Star Wars blu ray, such that we can compare the upscaling results objectively by calculating PSNR's for individual frames. I will post the original HD, the downscaled, and upscaled clips here.

By going to RGB mode of the super resolution software (which is slower, but more precise) you get rid of the edge artifacts, as can be seen in the following comparison:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118312

You also get slightly more detail:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118314

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118316

The basic concept for super resolution used for fluorescence microscopy and digital sensors is the same, namely combining multiple low resolution images to obtain a high resolution image. In the first case it is called optical super resolution. In the second case it is called geometrical super resolution. Since a video is nothing more than a sequence of very similar images, the concept has been successfully applied to video as well, for example in forensics. Wikipedia actually explains both pretty well:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superresolution

I think one 2014 Nobel prize winner would disagree:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2014/advanced-chemistryprize2014.pdf

The BasiClean+MagicUp has less grain, but also considerably less detail, visible in Obi-Wan's beard and Luke's hair, but especially in the string in the left corner of the frame on Obi-Wan's hood. 

Another comparison (two video samples) between precise bicubic (A = -0.75) and the super resolution. 

Update: Clips removed to make space for new clips.

Two more comparisons for precise bicubic (A = -0.75) vs super resolution. In this case both sources are uncompressed. In both cases details are more clear in the super resolution version. The grain also seems to be somewhat more visible though, and a number of edge artifacts are clearly visible in the second screenshot, which is of course very undesirable.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118200

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/118201