Upscaling vs Native...

[mkabi]

I don't know how to approach this subject, because there are so many things running in my mind right now (especially with regards to the subject).

Okay, who can tell the difference????

The difference between Native resolutions and an Upscaled resolutions...

And, it depends on the original source right?

Okay, obviously the difference between 720p and 1080p is huge, at least to me it is.... and if you are upscaling from 720p to 4K, its going to look worse than 1080p to 4K.

And, if you've ever seen the difference between 1080p & 2.5K or 2.7K.... the jump seems higher. But then the difference between 2.5K & 4K doesn't seem that big to me, so may be upscaling from 2.5K doesn't sound so bad to me.

Even the frame rate makes a difference, 1080 @ 24p is less attractive upscaled to 4K versus 1080 @ 60p.

And, if you go to 8K, obviously you can tell the difference if you upscale from 1080p, or can you??? Never tried it, but then again... I've seen samples. Enter AI based Upscaling (samsung and lg are calling it AI based, but sony is calling it something else).

https://www.cnet.com/news/can-samsungs-ai-upscaling-really-make-tv-images-better/

 

 

What do you think? At this point, if you got an 8K TV, that has this upscaling feature, would you even care about the native resolution coming in? As long as the image that you see on the 8K TV isn't pixelated and the display is 8K so what you are watching is technically 8K.

Just as an added thought, most of the 4K movies that are available as 4K bluray discs are upscaled from 2K. 

Also, to add more wood to the fire, Canon has been doing it for so long, and yet.... people are still smitten over the stuff coming out of a 1DC.

 

[newfoundmass]

It really depends. Screen size is a huge factor, for one. The smaller the screen the less apparent upscaling is. I think most people would have difficulty differentiating between 1080p and 4K on a 55 inch 4K screen unless they were literally a foot or so away. I know I do! 

Streaming is a whole different animal too. If you upscale 1080p to 4K and upload it to YouTube it'll look better than native 1080p because of the boost in bit rate that comes with 4K. I've actually done similar with standard definition video, upscaling it to 1080p for the better bit rate because it looks better on YouTube. 

My general opinion is that bit rate is overall more important than resolution, both in production and delivery. When it comes to viewing content I just care that it's watchable, resolution is ALMOST irrelevant.

Very few of us will ever be able to afford an 8K TV that's large enough to actually benefit from all that added resolution. I don't even have a place in my home to put such a monstrosity! ?

[KnightsFan]

I just got a 32" 4k monitor, and the difference between 4k and 1080p (native or upscaled) is immediately apparent at normal viewing distance. Uncompressed RGB sources without camera/lens artifacts, such as video games or CG renders, have absolutely no comparison; 4k is vastly smoother and more detailed.

I haven't tried any AI-based upscaling, nor have I looked at 8k content.

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

I think most people would have difficulty differentiating between 1080p and 4K on a 55 inch 4K screen unless they were literally a foot or so away. I know I do! 

I get your point, but that's an exaggeration. Even my non-filmmaker friends can see the difference from 3' away on a 32" screen. Though only with quality sources, you are exactly right that bit rate is a huge factor. If the data rate is lower than the scene's complexity requires, the fine detail is estimated/smoothed--effectively lowering the resolution. I haven't done A/B tests, but watching 4k content on YouTube I don't get the same visceral sense of clarity that I do with untouched XT3 footage in Resolve, or uncompressed CG.

[mkabi]

10 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I just got a 32" 4k monitor, and the difference between 4k and 1080p (native or upscaled) is immediately apparent at normal viewing distance.

So you’re saying that you see a difference between say a 4K Blu-Ray DVD (upscaled by studio from original 2K source) and the 4K from your XT3??

Given the same bit-rate?

[KnightsFan]

24 minutes ago, mkabi said:

So you’re saying that you see a difference between say a 4K Blu-Ray DVD (upscaled by studio from original 2K source) and the 4K from your XT3??

Given the same bit-rate?

I've never used a 4k blu ray. I'm saying I can tell the difference between a high quality 4k image, and that same image downscaled to 1080p. My primary experience here is with uncompressed RGB 4:4:4 images--CG renders and video games (both as a player and developer)--so no compression/bit rate factors involved.

I haven't done in-depth A/B testing, but my sense from looking at 4k footage, and then at 2k intermediates for VFX is that there is a noticeable difference in normal viewing there as well. That's both with the NX1 (80 mbps 4k, ProRes 422 HQ 2k intermediates) and the XT3 (100 mpbs 4k, ProRes 422 HQ 2k intermediates). Once the VFX shots are round tripped back they aren't as nice as the original 4k shots when viewed on the timeline--though naturally since it's delivered in 2k it's fine for the end product.

That's actually one perk of having Fusion built into Resolve, it completely eliminates round tripping simple VFX shots, so I don't have to choose between massive 4k intermediate files and losing the 4k resolution earlier in the workflow.

[mkabi]

36 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I've never used a 4k blu ray. I'm saying I can tell the difference between a high quality 4k image, and that same image downscaled to 1080p. My primary experience here is with uncompressed RGB 4:4:4 images--CG renders and video games (both as a player and developer)--so no compression/bit rate factors involved.

I haven't done in-depth A/B testing, but my sense from looking at 4k footage, and then at 2k intermediates for VFX is that there is a noticeable difference in normal viewing there as well. That's both with the NX1 (80 mbps 4k, ProRes 422 HQ 2k intermediates) and the XT3 (100 mpbs 4k, ProRes 422 HQ 2k intermediates). Once the VFX shots are round tripped back they aren't as nice as the original 4k shots when viewed on the timeline--though naturally since it's delivered in 2k it's fine for the end product.

That's actually one perk of having Fusion built into Resolve, it completely eliminates round tripping simple VFX shots, so I don't have to choose between massive 4k intermediate files and losing the 4k resolution earlier in the workflow.

Try upscaling a 1080/60p to 4K/24p then compare to native 4K/24p... both from XT3 and share results

[KnightsFan]

7 minutes ago, mkabi said:

Try upscaling a 1080/60p to 4K/24p then compare to native 4K/24p... both from XT3 and share results

I certainly would if I had an XT3 available, my experience with it was shooting and editing a number of projects on my friend's XT3 earlier this year. Adding higher frame rate to the upscaling is in interesting dimension I haven't explored before.

[kye]

Well, I started a thread about 6K being overrated as there's not much difference between a 6K image and a 4K one, or a 4K crop from a 6K image and a 2.7K crop from a 4K image upscaled to 4K and I was told in no uncertain terms that the images were completely different and that we all need to film in 6K or we will starve because our films will never be watched by anyone.

Never mind the films in cinemas shot on 2K cine cameras, apparently they don't count and you need 6K!

I personally find this stuff all very amusing, how people get so upset  

[KnightsFan]

On 11/1/2019 at 11:37 PM, mkabi said:

Try upscaling a 1080/60p to 4K/24p then compare to native 4K/24p... both from XT3 and share results

Just realized that I can do this with my NX1 also (face palm moment lol), I'll try to do that test later this week. But I can be pretty sure of the results ahead of time, the NX1's 1080p isn't great tbh.

@kye Yeah I think 2k is all that is necessary, especially for streaming. To me these are two very different questions: Can you see a difference between 1080p upscaled vs 4k native? Is 4k necessary to tell your story?

And I guess since we're also talking about frame rates, I think that HFR is phenomenal for nature docs. 60 fps is still a little jarring for narrative cinema to me, but for Planet Earth type photography and content, 60fps is great. I'd rather see 1080p60 nature docs than 4k24. I think sports are probably similar, but I don't really watch them personally.

[noone]

Anyone come across a camera (possibly a really old one) they like so much you just have to try and upscale it?      I have just got my late Fathers Canon G10 and i have to say the photos it takes in its sweet spot are DSLR competitive against a DSLR with an average lens.      Really nice for a ten plus year old tiny sensor point and shoot (at ISO 80 or 100....still ok at ISO 200 to maybe ISO 400 but poor above that).    Its video is only 640x480 but if it is anywhere near like its stills, it might well be worth the effort to upscale even though it is just limited ordinary point and shoot type video.   My issue will be finding something to shoot video with it at ISO 80    Anyone tried the old G10 for video?  

[kye]

52 minutes ago, noone said:

My issue will be finding something to shoot video with it at ISO 80

Anything outdoors on a sunny day should do the trick...  

[mkabi]

Normally, I wouldn't recommend upscaling 480p to anything beyond 1080p, but this Samsung AI samples are showing some interesting results.

Try it out and tell us what you think?

Speaking of which... @KnightsFan have you tried that experiment with your NX1?

[KnightsFan]

@mkabi not yet, i will shoot some clips today though. Do you know if there is a way i can try any form of AI upscaling or something? All i have right now is whatever Resolve uses.

[mkabi]

I wish I can help, because that upscaling feature is built into their 8K TVs... but in general, I would like to know the results of upscaling normally.

[KnightsFan]

@mkabi I just shot some test footage and uploaded the camera files here https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yZloslk3CYR_Z7JNUk8EooO6BnwaCwjL

I shot at f5.6 on a Nikon 105mm f2.5, an incredibly sharp lens. I picked a scene with a lot of detail and shot at the highest bitrate an unhacked NX1 can do. I haven't rendered out any scalings, let me know if you want me to try any particular algorithms or scaling methods.

From what I see, the UHD has significantly more detail, immediately apparent without pixel peeping on a 32" UHD screen at normal viewing distance. But like I said, the NX1 doesn't have great HD. Downscaling the UHD results in a slightly more detailed HD image than the HD straight, but not by much. Upscaling in Resolve using any of its scaling options does not bring any of the HD clips up to the sharpness of UHD, nor does adding a sharpening filter help. Though, to be fair, I have not been happy with the Sharpen OFX plugin in Resolve in the past, so maybe a different one would work better.

Unfortunately the light change without me noticing. Hopefully that doesn't effect sharpness, but I can try again later today if you'd like. I used an outdoor scene to get more high detail objects, but obviously there was a downside to that decision.

...actually I went out and did another version with more consistent light. They are in the same folder with a V2 in their names.

While I kept all picture settings the same between shots, the NX1's sharpness setting could be a factor, as the UHD versions look slightly over sharpened to me. I left it at 0 for these tests.

[no_connection]

I tried to get sharpness to match to make them visually more even, one is upscaled and one is native. Easy to spot if you look close but not too bad.

 

[Mokara]

The main thing that makes a difference is the screen size. On smaller screens you won't notice a difference but on larger screens you will.

Other than that, the subject matter has an affect as well. If the focus of your scene is a large object then you probably wont notice lower resolution, but if it a collection of smaller objects or an object where the fine detail itself is important, then you will.

In addition to that a lot of shooters do various things to deliberately soften their images, and of course if they do that they are effectively lowering resolution, in which case both resolutions will look similar.

[KnightsFan]

@no_connection Nice, that looks better than the sharpening I tried. What software? Also, what kind of screen do you have? I ask because the upscale looks pretty bad to me, but it may not be apparent at 100% on an HD monitor.

The "sharpening in post effect" is fairly visible especially on the large tree on the far left (circled blue), where in the upscale there's a white tinge to the detail in the bark which is completely missing from the UHD version. As I've said in a few other threads, higher resolution allows for smoother details. Just look at the points where light spills through the trees (circled red). It looks digital and sharp on the upscale, and smooth on the UHD. Then of course there's just detail itself. The pink circle is barely intelligible mess on the left, but shows shapes of leaves nicely on the right.

Additionally, overall the UHD just has crisper, richer colors. This might be due to compression, pixel pinning, or line skipping rather than the resolution itself.

 

[Mokara]

On 11/1/2019 at 7:14 AM, newfoundmass said:

It really depends. Screen size is a huge factor, for one. The smaller the screen the less apparent upscaling is. I think most people would have difficulty differentiating between 1080p and 4K on a 55 inch 4K screen unless they were literally a foot or so away. I know I do! 

Streaming is a whole different animal too. If you upscale 1080p to 4K and upload it to YouTube it'll look better than native 1080p because of the boost in bit rate that comes with 4K. I've actually done similar with standard definition video, upscaling it to 1080p for the better bit rate because it looks better on YouTube. 

My general opinion is that bit rate is overall more important than resolution, both in production and delivery. When it comes to viewing content I just care that it's watchable, resolution is ALMOST irrelevant.

Very few of us will ever be able to afford an 8K TV that's large enough to actually benefit from all that added resolution. I don't even have a place in my home to put such a monstrosity! ?

Yes you can tell the difference, just look at the vegetation, it is usually obvious. When I replaced my old 40" 1080p TV with a 65" 4K model, the difference at the same normal viewing distance was immediately apparent.

What confuses people into thinking that the difference is not all that great is that all of the 4K TV sets are upscaling the HD stuff to 4K, which does help a bit since it keeps edges straight (but not the actual detail). Edges catch your eye first so a superficial comparison of the images would be that they are similar, but not if you look between the edges. But if you compare HD footage on a HD screen with 4K footage on a 4K screen, the improvement is clear.

Another factor to consider is the bit rate used as well. If whatever you are viewing has a low bit rate it is going to be losing a lot of detail to compression anyway, in which case the differences between resolutions becomes less apparent. Compression will keep the edges but lose the detail between the edges, so when you upscale the HD to 4K it might not seem all that different. It is just an artifact of the low bit rate being used however. So, someone who compares two low bit rate clips may say there is not much difference, while someone who compares high bit rate clips may say there is a clear difference. And both will be right.

[no_connection]

The UHD have more detail at 100% than the HD at 100% which is a bit more muddy and seem to show more compression artifacts. And yes the upscale is not super great but nether was the HD it came from. You can't really get away from the plastic look when viewed up close and you rely on the source material to work decently for upscale. If there is not enough detail to work with it might not look good no matter what, if you scale up mud you are going to get mud, or a lot more mud, idk.

If you have a HD or UHD screen does not really matter for comparison since you are watching a part of an image at 1:1 ratio, and as long as you have an idea how large the real image would be you can guesstimate how it would look. Sitting at the same pixel density as I do now but with a 4k screen would be painful to watch. I sit 75cm(30") from a 24" 1920x1200 screen if it matters.

Here is a fun one then, the UHD scaled to 50% then back again.

I used waifu2x to upscale.

Oh and if it was not clear the source is @KnightsFan

*edit* I should note that the downscale was maybe not the best but it also highlight one of the bigger limitations, you are not going to get thin lines and the finer/small details unless it happens to taper away in a manner the scaling algorithm picks it up, but that works mostly with 2d art.