Edit History

1 hour ago, InterlacedGeek said:

About the bitrate .. shit in = shit out ... whatever the bitrate. The version you are talking about was recompressed from I don't know which source.

It is soo compressed, huge macroblocks everywhere and the image is sooo yellowish ... beurk.

By the way, the master is in PAL. The version you are watching, again, is a conversion from PAL to NTSC ... reduction of resolution and mixing of the fields to match the frame rate.

 

That is why I used the PAL laserdisc with a resolution of 720x576 and 25 fps ... unlike your precious version with 720x480 at 29.97 fps (certainly capture with a poor quality DVD recorder).

For your information (existing video formats):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-definition_television

Algorithm artefacts from AI bad interpretation maybe ... but where do you see "computerized guessmates" in my upscale ?

First time I hear this ... are you sure you  set the higher quality in Youtube ?

I'm perplexed everytime I got remarks like that, just to find out people are watching 2K videos on youtube and don't know they have to adjust the right settings manually ... and find themself watching footage in 240p.

 

Anyway. This is not the subject of this page. Can't wait for october.

 

 

What's with the attitude? If you have the LaserDisc PAL version scanned, I'd love to see/have that one or know where you got it from. Just a pure rip. But an upscale with, I assume, motion interpolation to double the framerate? That doesn't interest me. For all the guesstimates your program did to add detail in between what was there originally, I actually see less detail in your version. Look how the vain on her neck has been smoothed out. How much stranger the hair sticking to her face looks. The reduction of detail in the drapes behind her. The reduction of detail on her right sleeve.