Should there be a capture resolution limit?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 May 2006, 12:32

True. I didn't want to complicate matters.

You don't want to go lower than 72Hz, 75Hz really. What about 1152x864 IM? Does that give you a decent refresh rate.

True 60Hz is awful. My Mum's cruddy 15" CRT only supports up to 1024x768 at 60Hz (that's literally it). I've checked for newer monitor drivers but there aren't any. It REALLY flickers. I can't believe she doesn't notice it.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 09 May 2006, 12:53

@Brad:

Why use such a low resolution on a 19" monitor?

I've tried 1280x960 but I can't get the refresh rate to go above 85 hz.
Low refresh rates really hurt my eyes (I can see flickering on all monitors under 100 hz).

A CRT too - WTF??? You spent all your money on a projector but still use a CRT monitor???

LCD: too expensive. LCD: no true blacks. LCD: low refresh rates.
I know LCD (my dad and I sell high-end LCD monitors) and it's not good.

I'd need a LCD with a 1ms "reaction time" and they don't exist yet.

Anyway, I'll try other resolutions (for the caps) and see what works and what doesn't.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 09 May 2006, 13:05

bradavon wrote:You don't want to go lower than 72Hz, 75Hz really. What about 1152x864 IM? Does that give you a decent refresh rate.

I've never tried 1152x864. Is that a standard? It doesn't sound like one to me. Is it a 15:9 resolution?

I use 1024x768 because I'm on a 4:3 monitor & it is a comfortable resolution. I don't need any higher, and higher isn't always better because it can cause eye strain.

I sometimes use 1280x720 @ 85Hz on games if I want to play them in widescreen...

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 09 May 2006, 13:12

Nope. 1152x864 is 4/3.
Some videocards don't like it, though.

When:
1024x768 is too big.
1280x960 is too small.
you gotta consider something in between.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 23 Apr 2008, 02:28

I voted no.

See this post: https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=4590

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Apr 2008, 08:56

NO.

What makes thread even more irrelevant are HD captures. Downscale 1920x1080? Fuck off!

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Apr 2008, 10:53

In every comparison, we need to use the highest resolution possible to ensure that there is no loss of detail.

When comparing an anamorphic PAL DVD to an anamorphic NTSC DVD, that's 1024x576.
If both discs are 4/3, that's 768x576.
If HD material is involved, that's 1920x1080.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 23 Apr 2008, 10:55

tom2681 wrote:If both discs are 4/3, that's 768x576..

Only in the case of PAL v NTSC or PAL v PAL comparisons.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Apr 2008, 11:07

@Eva:
Right. With NTSC vs NTSC, 720x540 would be enough.

Chenlung wrote:NTSC DVDs are 720x480 (without pixel adjustment), or 640x480 in square (correct ratio) pixels.

720x540, actually.
640x480 is correct, but you'd be losing a lot of horizontal detail at that resolution (80 pixels).

Chenlung wrote:a reader from NTSC land is going to come on to a comparison of PAL>NTSC nature and say "oh, that NTSC DVD is shit because it's too soft" (because it's upscaled)

If NTSC and PAL DVDs have the same amount of detail (as you seem to imply), then both should look similar when upscaled.
Upscaling exaggerates the difference between the discs, but it doesn't remove any detail. Any difference you see in an upscaled comparison is genuine.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 23 Apr 2008, 12:30

720x540, actually.

I've heard of that calculation, but what does this represent?

640x480 is correct, but you'd be losing a lot of horizontal detail at that resolution (80 pixels).

Yep, unfortunately

.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Apr 2008, 12:30

EvaUnit02 wrote:What makes thread even more irrelevant are HD captures. Downscale 1920x1080? Fuck off!

AFAIK no one is suggesting downscaling HD captures. The resolutions Tom suggested were for SD DVD.

The point here is we should be all using the same resolutions, whatever they maybe. So we don't have resolutions being used all over the place.

tom2681 wrote:Right. With NTSC vs NTSC, 720x540 would be enough.

That's cool. I just don't think we should be mixing resolutions in the same comparison just because one happens to be PAL or NTSC.

Not that I'll be messing around changing resolutions if I happen to be running an NTSC comparison. I run Lourdes's batch file and that's it.

What if we create a solely PAL comparison then someone comes along with an NTSC disc? Should they use the alternate resolution? Bollocks to that it would screw the comparison completely up. The same resolution needs to be used throughout the particular comparison.

Besides it's been fine for 2 years. We agreed on the resolutions to use an eon ago:

1024x576 (Anamorphic)
768x576 (4:3 or Non-Anamorphic/Letterbox)
1920x1080 (HD)

You guys are way too picky. It's a freaking DVD capture comparison. No matter how accurate are you'll never get the same thing as it's displayed on your TV screen anyway. There are too many other factors to make that possible.

They're only intended to give you a good idea which DVD looks better. Those who analyse captures so much it makes their heads hurt, need to get a life.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 23 Apr 2008, 14:33

There's no disadvantage to going larger and it makes the differences more obvious.
If you use the NTSC size and add a PAL disc you'd have to resize them anyway.

Yeah, this was covered a long time ago...

FinnurE · Post by **FinnurE** » 23 Apr 2008, 20:38

In every comparison, we need to use the highest resolution possible to ensure that there is no loss of detail.

When comparing an anamorphic PAL DVD to an anamorphic NTSC DVD, that's 1024x576.
If both discs are 4/3, that's 768x576.
If HD material is involved, that's 1920x1080.

I hate to burst your bubble but if you upscale the NTSC to the PAL resolution it loses detail, just as much as when you downscale it. It would give unfair advantage to the vertical resolution of the PAL capture (The horizontal 720 pixels are already scaled to 768 to maintain aspect ratio).

Either both captures should be resized to a compromise ratio (768x576 and 640x480 would become 704x528 for both), or both captures kept at their native aspect ratio either maintaining horizontal resolution and scaling the vertical, or the other way around (which would be 720x540(PAL) for both.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Apr 2008, 20:46

Nope, sorry. You are confused.
Upscaling means adding pixels. The "good pixels" (the ones with all the detail) are still there. You're not losing any of them (unless you're using a truly crappy resizing algorithm).

Resizing to 768x576 does not give an unfair advantage to the PAL transfer, it simply allows you to see the natural lack of detail on the NTSC transfer.

Like it or not, 720x480 is less detailed than 720x576.
Downscaling hides it, upscaling reveals it.
This is not an opinion. This is fact.

EDIT:
Sorry if that sounded condescending, BTW.
I'm just tired of arguing over the same topic all the time.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Apr 2008, 22:59

No more condescending then everyone else's opinion on this topic

.

Lets just stick to what's been accepted for the past 2 years. "Personally" speaking as long as all captures have the same resolution (whatever that may be) per comparison I don't mind.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 23 Apr 2008, 23:23

I didn't register under FunnerE incase you're worrying about rebellion

.

EvaUnit02 wrote:NO.

What makes thread even more irrelevant are HD captures. Downscale 1920x1080? Fuck off!

I meant for other SD comparisons only, but that's just as silly as upscaling (in my opinion of course).

Tom2681 wrote:The "good pixels" (the ones with all the detail) are still there.

The good pixels may still be there, but the image remains beefed up with falseness - PAL samples more detail than NTSC does making seem like PAL's the winner everytime.

Incidentally, every save on a JPEG will compress it more (if you choose to upscale or whatever).

Our opinions are stated, I suppose you could just close the topic with the argument here for those curious enough in future.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Apr 2008, 00:06

No one has downscaled HD captures, that isn't worth discussing.

This is Bullets, Tom isn't allowed to lock threads

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 24 Apr 2008, 00:17

bradavon wrote:No one has downscaled HD captures, that isn't worth discussing.

I wouldn't want it either. Sorry, didn't make it fully clear in my post.

This is Bullets, Tom isn't allowed to lock threads

I thought he was back in the seat?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Apr 2008, 01:32

Yeah he is. I didn't mean that though. If Tom locks the thread, there is bound to be someone who complains

.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 24 Apr 2008, 01:35

bradavon wrote:Yeah he is. I didn't mean that though. If Tom locks the thread, there is bound to be someone who complains .

Ah

. Do you not mean if you lock the thread, someone will complain

?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Apr 2008, 02:13

* Well, no because I cannot.
* Well, no if anyone locks thread.
* Well, no yeah probably.

Pick one

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 24 Apr 2008, 02:27

bradavon wrote:* Well, no because I cannot.
* Well, no if anyone locks thread.
* Well, no yeah probably.

Pick one

It's like being offered chocolate, biscuit and carrot cake, I couldn't decide which

.

Anyway, clean up your options (removing superfluous "nos") and I'll decide 8) .

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 24 Apr 2008, 03:00

No, Chen. When comparing NTSC to PAL you upscale the the NTSC caps to make the comparison fair.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 24 Apr 2008, 10:32

chenlung wrote:PAL samples more detail than NTSC does making seem like PAL's the winner everytime.

I think there's something wrong with your sentence there, but let's see if I can get it right:

You're saying that, when upscaled to 1024x576, 1280x720, or 1920x1080, captures from PAL transfers generally look sharper than their NTSC counterparts.
But when you're actually watching the movie on any proper display, you are also upscaling the transfer.
Any advantage that the PAL transfer has in the caps will be visible (even more so) on your TV / Plasma / Videoprojector.

Don't get me wrong, I hate PAL. PAL speed-up is evil.
But the slight increase in resolution is there, and it shouldn't be erased through downscaling.

FinnurE · Post by **FinnurE** » 24 Apr 2008, 12:38

Nope, sorry. You are confused.
Upscaling means adding pixels. The "good pixels" (the ones with all the detail) are still there. You're not losing any of them (unless you're using a truly crappy resizing algorithm).

Whatever algorithm you use when you upscale the NTSC both horizontally and vertically the "good pixels" get blended together through various formulas and thus do not represent the image as it is on the DVD.