Hey guys, I hope I'm starting this in the right section. If not please let me know and I'll move it or start it where it's supposed to.
This came up in a video ozcancelik posted. You should check it out: http://magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13878.0
We started a conversation there about whether or not we lose too much detail when stretching clips shot at 48fps in MLV or RAW, so I decided to make a little comparison. It may not be the best images to show it, but I think you can notice a bit of a difference in detail. To consider it too much or just irrelevant will depend on each person and what the final result will be used for.
First I'm embedding a little clip I made to compare:
And to see it in images may be better, so I have this comparison with the clips without being sharpened and in log colorspace.
(http://www.pbase.com/andresharambour/image/158353165/original.jpg)
The same one with a LUT applied and some sharpening (same amount in both images).
(http://www.pbase.com/andresharambour/image/158353166/original.jpg)
And each image on its own and full size, both processed and log.
24fps
(http://www.pbase.com/andresharambour/image/158353162/original.jpg)
48fps
(http://www.pbase.com/andresharambour/image/158353164/original.jpg)
24fps
(http://www.pbase.com/andresharambour/image/158353161/original.jpg)
48fps
(http://www.pbase.com/andresharambour/image/158353163/original.jpg)
A bit about my workflow:
I converted MLV files to DNGs using MLV Mystic.
Opened files in Davinci resolve and applied a Cinelog LUT to convert them to log colorspace. I stretched the 48fps clip in this step as well.
I exported stills from the clips and the applied the LUT and sharpening to both and exported stills again.
Please let me know if Im missing anything.
Andres
In terms of h264, I find that the 1280x720 looks sharper than the 1920x1080, and then I also prefer higher framerates.
However you're talking about raw :P
The unstretched content clearly has sharper detail. Most people probably wouldn't even notice though, and if you need the higher framerate, I'm sure that framerate is more important then the detail loss.
Nice test. Shows how good the 48fps stretch files really are.
looks very good indeed.
I use DaVinci Resolve for rescaling "normal" 25fps footage (1728 pixels wide to 1920)
Tested several programs for rescaling, but DaVinci gave best results.
So for stretching and scaling DaVinci Resolve is probably the way to go.
Quote from: Levas on November 26, 2014, 02:05:25 PM
looks very good indeed.
I use DaVinci Resolve for rescaling "normal" 25fps footage (1728 pixels wide to 1920)
Tested several programs for rescaling, but DaVinci gave best results.
So for stretching and scaling DaVinci Resolve is probably the way to go.
I've had the same experience. I believe that scaling the files from the DNGs is much better than doing the same from an already processed file.
Looking at those shots, still can't figure out how good the details are after being stretching... Pretty much on par with the "original" material! Good one andresharambour
Davinci, AE or PP... I think software can't do anything scaling and streching. You have 508 line horizontally and streching to 816 line. If you add more sharpening, i agree DaVinci is the best. But without extra sharpening all the same. Am I wrong?
Photoshop has some options like preserve details, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper, bilinear etc. But Ae or Davinci does not have this options. AE has "Detail-preserving Upscale" and "Sharpen" options. If i want to more details i use that presets.
At the end it'll end up on YouTube and all that sharpness goes to...
Quote from: jose_ugs on November 27, 2014, 04:38:22 PM
At the end it'll end up on YouTube and all that sharpness goes to...
Yes, that's true. I've also tested watching full res videos on a LED TV and they all look the same, no noticeable difference.
To hell with YouTube, this comparison is worth it all the way...
This one is also on a similar topic:
Hmmm... This is quite interesting!