Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Ilumin8 - claiming that upscaling 1080p produces better results than native 4k?

Marcus Friedlander

Marcus Friedlander

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Los Angeles
Has anyone hear of this?

http://mindaptiv.com/the-current-state-of-the-compression-codec/

just stumbled across this, but it seems WAAAAY to good to be true.

Plus, they said that 100% of their testers chose the upscaled 1080p file over the native 4k file. Which sounds like a load of bullshit to me.

But if it's true, that's a HUGE step forward for content distribution and a HUGE step back for content creation.
 
"illumin8’s algorithms leverage adaptive technology that upsamples, color corrects, de-noises and transforms video in real time. One of the differences between the existing video compression formats and illumine is that illumin8 doesn’t stretch or add pixels; illumin8 uses adanced edge-detection technology to identify and preserve object details within a video to be transferred and displayed at the greatest level of quality that the display device supports."

It makes sense that they are going for the illumin8 version over the native resolution version because they've not just upscaled it but also polished the image in a way that's pleasing to the eye. It just goes to show that there is more to creating a nice image then taking it at a higher resolution.
 
It de-noises and removes extraneous detail and thus the flles will compress better.
If the files encode better then they might give better results for a certain bitrate.
So it's kind of to do with the limitations of streaming media and constrained bandwidth.
On physical discs like Blu-Ray where there is plenty of bandwidth then this wouldn't give the same advantages.

Shooting in 4K for 1080 might not even give an advantaage as you are just adding more detail which might need to be removed.
Depends on a lot of things.
 
Um.... I'm going to demonstrate high quality scaling, but I'll only let you see it on my iMac on a You Tube video.... They need to put their claims out to be properly examined, rather than rely on anecdotes. That they're obfuscating a comparison of their scaling by NR and colour correction is also a concern.

I've done a tonne of research and development on adaptive scaling algorithms. They're very cool and you can do some very interesting stuff with them, but none have been a replacement for real resolution.

It's a bit iffy to talk of a scaling algorithm being compression. One argument that can be made is about whether it's better to compress a smaller image at a higher bit rate or larger image at a lower bit rate, and also to see how that decision would change over a range of target file sizes.

I think you're right to be skeptical....

Graeme
 
I would love to see an example.
We will get in a time where we will be filming in vectors and textures where resolution won t be playing a role.

Pat
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Um.... I'm going to demonstrate high quality scaling, but I'll only let you see it on my iMac on a You Tube video.... They need to put their claims out to be properly examined, rather than rely on anecdotes. That they're obfuscating a comparison of their scaling by NR and colour correction is also a concern.

I've done a tonne of research and development on adaptive scaling algorithms. They're very cool and you can do some very interesting stuff with them, but none have been a replacement for real resolution.

It's a bit iffy to talk of a scaling algorithm being compression. One argument that can be made is about whether it's better to compress a smaller image at a higher bit rate or larger image at a lower bit rate, and also to see how that decision would change over a range of target file sizes.

I think you're right to be skeptical....

Graeme
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response sir! Your perspective and expertise are always appreciated!
 
In the end, if you're claiming an upscaled 1080p to 4k looks better than the 1080p, that's similar to saying upscaled SD looks better than HD and so on, until ultimately you're scaling SD up to 8k and saying that SD looks best. If that upscaled SD doesn't look best, then we can be sure that the claim that the algorithm can actually "make the image look better when upscaled" is false. It's similar to claims that a compression algorithm can always make any data smaller. This is called "endless compression" and is nonsense.... http://www.endlesscompression.com

Graeme
 
Sounds like well timed marketing to me.

The majority of broadcasters have been shooting 1080p, and are facing a staggering race uphill to compete with Broadband and UHD delivery. Any solution that can promise them a painless way to get to UHD, could potentially be worth billions.

I have to imagine these will be the first of many solutions like this...

Ultimately, we all know the truth - upscaling will always be that: upscaling. There is no substitute for REAL RESOLUTION.

But I'm sure many will pay handsomely for a solution that promises them otherwise!
 
Nick Morrison said:
Sounds like well timed marketing to me.

The majority of broadcasters have been shooting 1080p, and are facing a staggering race uphill to compete with Broadband and UHD delivery. Any solution that can promise them a painless way to get to UHD, could potentially be worth billions.

I have to imagine these will be the first of many solutions like this...

Ultimately, we all know the truth - upscaling will always be that: upscaling. There is no substitute for REAL RESOLUTION.

But I'm sure many will pay handsomely for a solution that promises them otherwise!
Click to expand...

There's about a decade or two worth of features finished at 2k and no one's going back and rescanning and redoing vfx for Spider Man or whatever at 4k. So a better upscaler has value.

The reason people are choosing the lower resolution image is because he's also applying more contrast and saturation to it, which is more pleasing at first until it begins to look fake or strain your eye. Sort of like compressing music too loud. Or new coke.
 
How many 4K TV-sets there are?
I mean, 120 V and a frequency of 60 Hz is Standard.
Is 4K Standard too? :biggrin:
 
Matt W. said:
There's about a decade or two worth of features finished at 2k and no one's going back and rescanning and redoing vfx for Spider Man or whatever at 4k. So a better upscaler has value.

The reason people are choosing the lower resolution image is because he's also applying more contrast and saturation to it, which is more pleasing at first until it begins to look fake or strain your eye. Sort of like compressing music too loud. Or new coke.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, doesn't change the fact that broadcasters are starting to get nervous about 4K, and are looking for ways to uprezz.

Not all of them have planned ahead as well as Netflix or Amazon...
 
Šabović Adis;1590310 said:
How many 4K TV-sets there are?
I mean, 120 V and a frequency of 60 Hz is Standard.
Is 4K Standard too? :biggrin:
Click to expand...

According to Michael Cioni, by 2018 all TV sets for sale will be UHD. So...we're perhaps a couple of years away?
 
Graeme Nattress said:
In the end, if you're claiming an upscaled 1080p to 4k looks better than the 1080p, that's similar to saying upscaled SD looks better than HD and so on, until ultimately you're scaling SD up to 8k and saying that SD looks best. If that upscaled SD doesn't look best, then we can be sure that the claim that the algorithm can actually "make the image look better when upscaled" is false. It's similar to claims that a compression algorithm can always make any data smaller. This is called "endless compression" and is nonsense.... http://www.endlesscompression.com

Graeme
Click to expand...

Graeme, some years ago I used a program called Genuine Fractals on digital stills that would blow up a small digital photo to a size suitable for printing and framing as a large print. And while I didn't pixel-peep, to my eye the results were great.

Have you ever checked out how they were able to increase an image in size while seemingly retaining the quality?
 
Šabović Adis;1590322 said:
For sale...meaning, bying is mandatory? Trashing all HD sets too?
I don't believe that. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Obviously...UHD won't be the only standard...but we may well see an ecosystem where screens can automatically switch btw UHD and 1080 content/standards.

Not too disimilar from how most American BROADCAST CABLE boxes have parallel 1080 and SD options now....

This feels very similar to growth of 1080 HD a decade ago. And today...1080 is is a "standard"...and SD is fading away...

These things clearly work in cycles....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top