Upscaling test (low light, high iso)

M

MarekV

Active member
Hi guys!
When I saw the 100% quality factor MJPEG settings I was amazed!
I can reach almost 80 mbit/s bit-rate at 720p in particular situations!
I did small low light set-up .. + High ISO (I want test the noise in low light..) + MJPEG 720p..

I got almost 72 mbit/s bit-rate here..

..... And BAM!

This is a grab from upscaled video to 2K resolution! (2048p, 1,77777778 aspect r.)

.. of course I can´t show you a grab from video here in full resolution... :undecided So here is a Full Resolution UNCOMPRESSED 2K grab in *.TIF format for download (in .zip): HERE (uploaded to mediafire for super-easy download)


Here is a small res. preview:

2kgh13small.png


I can say that the upscaled uncompressed AVI video in 2K looks very very good for upscaling from 720 and the video is "much better than 720!!" (but the file is so big!)

If you render compressed 2K video in, for example, .mp4 the quality is not that good but the file is a smaller .. the .TIF grab is better now ..

And of course: Nothing edited in the picture!! true "RAW" un-edited grab

720p vs 2K

Here you can download the original 720 grab ... compare the 2K and the original un-processed 720 frame.. :2vrolijk_08:
DOWNLOAD: http://www.mediafire.com/?t201b2hf6605g6l

... also, the point of this test was check if the "super-high-quality" MJPEG settings can produce nice "big screen" resolution image .. now I just need to rent a cinema auditorium in our city with 2K digital projector .. shoot some short clips and take a look on 12 meter screen :D :D .. but from this point of view the image is pretty good..

Another 2K video grab sample ..

preview:
2kv2000000.jpg


Download 2K version: http://www.mediafire.com/?encll4kc06xc8b1
 
Last edited:
If it looks good for a 2k upscale i can understand that, but saying it looks better than its source, well thats not how it works. Care to upload your source frame so we have some sort of comparison?
 
I'm on my phone now (night here) so I can't upload the source frame .. But I will do it in the morning .. Maybe that "much better than 720" thing isn't completly right ... But hey.. Look at the upscaled frame .. Isn't that good?!

And again.. We'll see the comparsion in the morning.. ;-)
 
Last edited:
It looks impressive but I am struggling to see how this can be achieved. I'm new to the technical bits but it just seems improbable!
 
You can use many (well not many in fact) pro-editing studio software with support for 2K resolution rendering .. you need a fast PC for faster rendering and lot of free space on hard drive... but the final result is pretty impressive even for upscale ..!

and again ... non of this can be real without the GH1 Hack!! So thank you guys!! :-)
 
20MB a frame? So its about 600MB/sec? lol, i see why they dont have mtiff.

Well the first thing i saw was a pretty flower, then the next i saw was the horrendous fixed pattern noise, so im guessing you were shooting at something other than ISO100 (ah the beauty of overcranked sensors). It does scale nicely, but then again im viewing it on a 24" 1080p monitor, so really im viewing a 720p upconvert to 2160 downconvert to 1080.

Avchd would probably only need like 5mbits to capture the same scene in the same quality. I've thrown the lens cap on with 80mbits mjpeg and y'know what, it still took like 50mbits. But i guess the advantage is that you never have to worry about mud, which avchd seems to produce regardless of how many bits its allotted, of which it rarely uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top