View Full Version : Test for Red Giant's Instant HD
dvxwheelr
05-21-2006, 04:02 PM
Here are two clips from some dvx footage. I was doing a sound test by acting out a scene from Shakespeare. The fist picture is with the Instant HD plugin effect and the second picture is the source footage before the effect was applied.
-dvxwheelr
Sorry, I'm not sure how to get the pictures to post. But they are on Stickypod.com under my user name dvxwheelr
Lake Films
05-21-2006, 04:03 PM
No link
res://C:\WINDOWS\system32\shdoclc.dll/pagerror.gifThe page cannot be found
marlenedegrood
05-21-2006, 04:31 PM
I'm Impressed. The difference is amazing!
marlenedegrood
05-21-2006, 04:34 PM
Oh.....here's a direct link to the page
http://www.stickypod.com/videos/showphoto.php/photo/1750/size/big/cat/all/what/allfields/name/dvxwheelr/whenterm/w/name/dvxwheelr
Lake Films
05-21-2006, 05:01 PM
Wow, there is a big difference, so that's the new Red Giant software? Was rendering long & how was the learning curve?
HDkilledFILM.
05-21-2006, 05:02 PM
Is Instant HD a sharpening effect or is it like rhino and scans the image at a high resolution?
the SD picture looks like un rendered footage. Draft in pp 1.5
what are the resolutions of both pictures?
marlenedegrood
05-21-2006, 06:35 PM
Wow, there is a big difference, so that's the new Red Giant software? Was rendering long & how was the learning curve?
Yeah....I'm curious about the render times too.
Inoran
05-21-2006, 08:48 PM
the source picture looks muchc worse than a typical dvx screen
mastertee31
05-21-2006, 09:20 PM
I think those pics are bs. Look at the space between the curtain and the right edge of the shelf in the background and compare the 2...notice anything? The space is bigger on the 1rst pic than the 2nd (This leads me to believe they are not the same picture) ((Unless the aspect ratio was changed))
the source picture looks muchc worse than a typical dvx screen
thats why i asked the question, because at full resolution, it wouldnt be that large on the screen, looks like its been matched to size up against the uprezzed one? I am correct in this asumption? If this is true, then WOW.
Kholi
05-21-2006, 09:24 PM
Where are the pics?
Cheesesailor77
05-21-2006, 10:05 PM
yeah guys, it looks worse than a typical DVX screen because its a normal 480 screen stretched to HD size, with no uprezzing.
the example looks very impressive to me
now, to keep the proportions equal, one should shoot in squeeze mod and then uprez correct? Ive tried with the trial version uprezzing my 4x3 standard def footage from the dvx100b and it made it slightly taller, so i had to squish it a little bit. Me thinks this is due to the fact that HD footage is standard 16x9, so its trying to convert it to a different aspect ratio. Where as if you shoot Squeeze mode, no problems?
FatBird19
05-21-2006, 10:50 PM
the source picture looks muchc worse than a typical dvx screen
agreed. I think it's a fake comparison. :/
scharky
05-22-2006, 02:16 AM
Calling BS on this one as well. The bottom image is not what is to be expected by normal up-rezzing process, I should know, I do it all the time.
Here is an image right from the timeline being uprezzed by nothing more than Vegas. Shot 4x3 cropped 2.35:1
http://www.stefweb.net/package.jpg
Now it is definitly not comparable to true HD, but it looks much better than what wheeler is saying is a normal uprezz process.
dvxwheelr
05-22-2006, 06:37 AM
Wow, there is a big difference, so that's the new Red Giant software? Was rendering long & how was the learning curve?
The learning curve was quick. I'm really not sure I did it correctly since Premiere Pro 1.5 has no HD presets. The thing I like about it is that detail increases but you still save the softness. The rendering was about a long as any other effect.
_dvxwheelr
dvxwheelr
05-22-2006, 06:40 AM
Is Instant HD a sharpening effect or is it like rhino and scans the image at a high resolution?
It expands the clip to HD resolution adding pixels. The footage can then be used in a HD project.
_dvxwheelr
dvxwheelr
05-22-2006, 06:47 AM
the SD picture looks like un rendered footage. Draft in pp 1.5
what are the resolutions of both pictures?
720X480. As far as I can remember the SD clip was right from the camera. (It's an old clip). I'm really not sure about the resolution thing. I did an 1280X720 in Instant HD, but the result was a cropped close up (it was just as sharp as the 720X480). Maybe you can't get a true HD clip in Premiere Pro 1.5.
_dvxwheelr
dvxwheelr
05-22-2006, 06:49 AM
the source picture looks muchc worse than a typical dvx screen
It was one of my fist test shots. The lighting was very simple and I really didn't know what I was doing. I picked the clip because of all the different textures.
_dvxwheelr
dvxwheelr
05-22-2006, 06:52 AM
thats why i asked the question, because at full resolution, it wouldnt be that large on the screen, looks like its been matched to size up against the uprezzed one? I am correct in this asumption? If this is true, then WOW.
The SD image was stetched a bit to match for the comparison, but it is the footage used. The actual frames may vary. One final note: Basically, I was under-impressed with this plug in. I think the flaw in the whole thing was the way I got the stills for the comparison. I didn't use the same program for this and the quality of the sd image was compromised and it was better than shown. I didn't feel that the difference between the two clips (watching them on a dvd) was great enough. I'm sorry if anyone was mislead because of this.
_dvxwheelr
what if you were to uprezz it and then shrink it down to SD size? Would it be higher in quality?
newtodvx100a
05-22-2006, 03:32 PM
You had me sold on the plugin. I guess if it doesn't look better on the DVD I will save my money. Thanks for sharing the experience.
dvxwheelr
05-23-2006, 11:51 AM
what if you were to uprezz it and then shrink it down to SD size? Would it be higher in quality?
The problem was that I got the still from a dvd authoring program which squeezed its resolution. When I put together the two stills I had to stretch the SD still back to match the resolution of the Hd still (which was made in Premiere Pro). This is how it was compromised I'm afraid. When I redid the SD still on a Premiere pro timeline the true quality of the still came out and it was only a little bit worse than the HD still. I reposted these new stills on Stickypod.com under the indie film category. I hope this helps. The best way to use this plugin would be to shoot in 4X3 mode and then use the effect to make it widescreen.
http://www.stickypod.com/videos/showphoto.php/photo/1753/limit/recent
mastertee31
05-23-2006, 12:50 PM
This would defeat the purpose. Pixels are all the same size, when you jump into the hd world pixels are still the same as sd pixels physicly, just a much higher count. (That's why hd tv's look so good, you can go bigger with less stretching of pixels. As opposed to old conventional tv's) Say for example a perticular pixel is displaying the color red at the moment but everything around it is black, by boosting the resolution or squashing more information into the screen is not going to make your image clearer... that pixel can not sub-divide into more colours. (It can only display one color at a time) Your 1 pixel will not be able to display that one spec of red with black all around, it needs the help of the pixels around it to get that effect.
Ever notice that when you watch standard analog shows on a hd tv it looks terrible? That because older tv's had lower resolution and were able to mask all the imperfections that we can now see on hd tv's.
I call this the billboard effect, notice that when your on the highway looking at a billboard it looks clear from far, but when you get up close and see the print dots they are multicolored to make up the color black? Same idea with a hd tv. Your standard tv can only display so much resolution, your squashing idea is good but would not work, the signal would not be the weak link, it would be the tv. This applies to computer monitors as well (Which are all essentialy super high resolution monitors, higher res than hd obviously)
Hope I didn't lose anyone in explaining this... (I used to sell High end electronics)
dvxwheelr
05-24-2006, 08:56 AM
This would defeat the purpose. Pixels are all the same size, when you jump into the hd world pixels are still the same as sd pixels physicly, just a much higher count. (That's why hd tv's look so good, you can go bigger with less stretching of pixels. As opposed to old conventional tv's) Say for example a perticular pixel is displaying the color red at the moment but everything around it is black, by boosting the resolution or squashing more information into the screen is not going to make your image clearer... that pixel can not sub-divide into more colours. (It can only display one color at a time) Your 1 pixel will not be able to display that one spec of red with black all around, it needs the help of the pixels around it to get that effect.
Ever notice that when you watch standard analog shows on a hd tv it looks terrible? That because older tv's had lower resolution and were able to mask all the imperfections that we can now see on hd tv's.
I call this the billboard effect, notice that when your on the highway looking at a billboard it looks clear from far, but when you get up close and see the print dots they are multicolored to make up the color black? Same idea with a hd tv. Your standard tv can only display so much resolution, your squashing idea is good but would not work, the signal would not be the weak link, it would be the tv. This applies to computer monitors as well (Which are all essentialy super high resolution monitors, higher res than hd obviously)
Hope I didn't lose anyone in explaining this... (I used to sell High end electronics)
I follow what you're saying, but I'm still puzzled. When I burn the two clips on a dvd and play them back on a HD TV, they still look almost the same. Shouldn't the HD clip (with more pixels) look much better?
_dvxwheelr