Interpolation to upsize RAW video?

[scout72]

Just curious if anyone has messed around with this and gotten good results? I am specifically talking about using a photoshop plugin like Alien Skin Blow Up in a batch process and then output to a 4k cinemadng format. I have tested on a short clip but I have no way of viewing at full resolution- but the blown up comparisons look better.  Anyone else working on something like this? - It does take up a huge amount of room and processing power :-) I am interested in this specifically for 4k final output to DCP for a future project.

[mkrjf]

please look at
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6518.msg56186#msg56186
and tell me your thoughts

[CFP]

mkrjf: You've got an answer in that thread. That's exactly how it works. It skips lines & columns to reduce the resolution and saves the result directly to the memory card. Magic Lantern isn't processing the RAW files at all - Except from cropping the borders.

scout72: I got amazing results using this AviSynth script for upscaling my 600D footage to 1920 X 768 (2.5:1) and sharpen it:

[Spoiler]LoadPlugin(ScriptDir()+"..\Avisynth-plugins\nnedi3.dll")
# Get the Plugin here: http://web.missouri.edu/~kes25c/nnedi3.zip
# Edit the path if necessary

LoadVirtualDubPlugin(ScriptDir()+"..\VirtualDub\plugins\msu_sharpen.vdf", "MSUSmartSharpen", 0)
# Get the Plugin here: http://www.compression.ru/video/smart_sharpen/src/smart_sharpen.zip
# Edit the path if necessary

ImageSource("PATH TO YOU TIFF FILES\%d.tif", FIRST_FRAME'S_NAME, LAST_FRAME'S_NAME, FRAME_RATE, false, false, "RGB24")
# That works only if your TIFF files are named like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, [...], 678

nnedi3_rpow2(rfactor = 4)

ConvertToRGB32()

MSUSmartSharpen(3)

ConvertToRGB24()

Spline36Resize(1920, 768)
# If your aspect ratio isn't 2.5:1 you may want to change the second number
# If you want 4K, use 4048 X (4048 / YOUR_ASPECT_RATIO)
[/Spoiler]

[reddeercity]

Just curious if anyone has messed around with this and gotten good results? I am specifically talking about using a photoshop plugin like Alien Skin Blow Up in a batch process and then output to a 4k cinemadng format. I have tested on a short clip but I have no way of viewing at full resolution- but the blown up comparisons look better.  Anyone else working on something like this? - It does take up a huge amount of room and processing power :-) I am interested in this specifically for 4k final output to DCP for a future project.

hI 
i did a complete workflow on this about 2 weeks ago (link)
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6075.msg47424#msg47424
basically in Photoshop i upscale from 1880x845 to 4096x1861 24p
maintained the 240 dpi for the image (most important part)!
& i far as i know Photoshop is the only one that can do this without loosing pixel density.
Most other Video Software looks at image sequences as Frames not as photo Images and as frames there are interpolate at 72 dpi
Clearly there is a differences , i did a short test & uploaded a 4K Mp4 to Youtube for they are the only ones that can stream
4K.
I didn't spend i lot of time working on the image, sharpness etc....
Just was wondering if it could be done 
   

 

[Jolly Roger]

maintained the 240 dpi for the image (most important part)!
& i far as i know Photoshop is the only one that can do this without loosing pixel density.

DPIs do not act before printing an image on paper sheets, that data is embedded in digital files just for convenience. http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html

If you feel the upscaling better, probably it depends on better Photoshop upscaling algorythms.

[mvejerslev]

maintained the 240 dpi for the image (most important part)!
& i far as i know Photoshop is the only one that can do this without loosing pixel density.

Ths is not the first time you mention this reddeercity, but the fact remains, resolution info is probably the LEAST important in regards to files destined for monitors. Resolution info is only relevant to print. A video or photo will always display at a monitors given resolution. The only important thing regarding size on a display device is the dimensions of the file (x,y), and the ppi of the monitor. In other words resolution info is completely ignored for all other purposes than sending to a printer.

[reddeercity]

No i disagree, it is the dpi the make it here .
Its like having a Small Sensor to a Large Full Frame Sensor.
you just don't have the Information .
Garbage in Garbage out !
if you try to stretch Frames size you are simply enlarging  pixel size
if your Source has high pixel & bit density you have the information
to re-size with out image derogation.
If you want to keep the same frame size then dpi dose not matter .
unless you do VFX, eg. Green Screen work you Need the Pixel density
By the way i always convert to 16 bit TiFF image Sequence.

The other thing that make a different with high "dpi" is Grading.
There again more information, make Grading a breeze .
But no matter which way you want to believe, you must try
it for your self and see if its exceptable product.

This  workflow is just a suggestion take it with a grain of salt
But i believe in this workflow. 
     

 

[bnvm]

Like the others have said, dpi is totally meaningless for anything other than print, and is only there for convenience anyway. All it tells you is the number of pixels that will be printed per inch of paper. for example, a 4K image printed at 1024 dpi would be 4 inches wide. A 4K image used for video can be displayed at any size, 4 inches for a smart phone or 72 feet for an IMax screen. Photoshop's upscaling will be the same if it is 1dpi or 10000 dpi.

[Audionut]

Monitors display lines of resolution.  That results in a fixed number of pixels.  DPI has no meaning.
At 1920 x 1080, there are 1920 pixels horizontally x 1080 pixels vertically (2073600 pixels).  No more, no less!

Printers allow adjustment of the pixel density of the printed image.  An image can be printed at various dimensions, determined by how many source pixels you want printed per inch (DPI).

22mp (5760 x 3840) can be printed at,
19.2 inches x 12.8 inches @ 300DPI
62.609 inches x 41.739 inches @ 92DPI

@reddeercity, there is nothing to disagree with.  There are facts, and then there is a flawed understanding

[DaveAbbott]

After Effects now supports bicubic scaling. No need to run image sequences through Photoshop.

http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2013/06/bicubic-resampling-for-improved-scaling-and-other-transformations-in-after-effects.html

[a1ex]

Bicubic is at least 10-20 years old, and Adobe is advertising it now in 2013?!

FYI: http://www.panotools.org/dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html

[kgv5]

Guys
and what is the best way to "downscale" the footage in AE? Say 2,5K 2,39:1 to 1920x800 to retain as much details as possible?
Just use resize by 80 something percent? Theoretically downscaled 2,2 or 2,5K footage should have more details than 1080p, what do you think?

[sloore]

I've gotten excellent results using Nuke.  It has a node called TVIScale which multiplies the dimensions by 2(the width gets doubled and the height gets doubled) so the result is that that all those 960x540 raw videos shot by the T3i are at the ideal resolution to get automatically turned into 1080p footage using TVIscale.  I've even managed to plug a second TVIScale node in to get 3840x2160 resolution and it still looks mighty fine.  I still like to run it through After Effects and Camera Raw first in order to knock down the noise in the footage first, but it really looks nice when all is said and done.

I know it's not exactly a solution for everybody considering the prohibitive costs, but if you have access to it already like I do, then it is definitely the way to go IMO.  From what I've seen myself and all the research I've done so far, going with Nuke is the way to go.

I only just managed to get raw video working reliably on my camera with ML, so you'll have to wait a bit, but I'm going to post some test footage on here some time soon with a breakdown of my workflow.