Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: "Al Stu - MVP" <NOYB@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:11:06 -0700
Saving at two different resolutions is to compare apples and oranges. This
is not the premise the original theory was based upon. Perhaps a better
test of the original theory would be to get the filter removed from DV-AVI
and then save with same resolution as AVI and WMV.
--
Al Stu - MVP
The world may be round, but I'm still living on the edge.
Copyright © 2005, Al Stu (2348410). All Rights Reserved.
"Rehan" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:efNvAAuoFHA.3380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> It seems that your being right about the blurring filter in DV AVI has
> made you blind with arrogance.... so much so that now you seem to be
> claiming completely unrelated parts of the argument to be settled in your
> favor.
>
>> Some people just insist on being wrong, and there's nothing I can do
>> about it, but challenge them. So tell us how it is that image resizing
>> and/or changing pixel aspect ratio is different for "DV-AVI (NTSC)" and
>> "High Quality Video (NTSC)". They are both 720x480 are they not?
>> Therefore does the image not have to be resized the same for both? And
>> just for the sake of argument, assuming a change of pixel aspect ratio,
>> would this not be done for both formats too since they are both 720x480?
>
> The major difference in quality between "DV-AVI (NTSC)" and "High Quality
> Video (NTSC)" is due to the blurring filter. I accept, and as before, give
> you credit for suspecting it... so far so good...
>
> However this does not disprove the existence of a quality degradation due
> to non-square pixel adjustment....
>
> Proof? Explain the difference between the "High Quality Video (NTSC)" and
> "High Quality Video (large)" !!!
>
> The difference between these two profile is that NTSC one saves in 720x480
> using non-square pixels... while the other one saves in 640x480 using
> square pixels. The latter profile is clearly much sharper (try it with my
> test images, particularly B). If non-square pixels do no cause any effect
> then such a difference should not exist.
>
>
>
> --
> Rehan
> MS MVP -- Digital Media
> www.rehanfx.org - get transitions and effects for Windows Movie Maker
>
>
>
> "Al Stu - MVP" <NOYB@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OFFaFSGoFHA.3108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I don't think that's quite what he said, but you are entitled to your
>>misconceived interpretation. Just don't spread it around.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some people just insist on being wrong, and there's nothing I can do
>> about it, but challenge them. So tell us how it is that image resizing
>> and/or changing pixel aspect ratio is different for "DV-AVI (NTSC)" and
>> "High Quality Video (NTSC)". They are both 720x480 are they not?
>> Therefore does the image not have to be resized the same for both? And
>> just for the sake of argument, assuming a change of pixel aspect ratio,
>> would this not be done for both formats too since they are both 720x480?
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not, and never have questioned that down-resizing the pixel count of
>> an image will not have an impact on it's quality. That is a given
>> regardless of tool used. But it has to do that regardless of saving as
>> "DV-AVI (NTSC) vs. "High Quality Video (NTSC) as they are both 720x480.
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on my limited understanding of digitized images, it does not seem
>> that changing pixel aspect ratio will change the quality of an image.
>> Just it's H/V proportionality.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will admit I am not a video/image expert and my positions, premises,
>> and reasoning at times may not be totally complete and 100% accurate, and
>> perhaps sometimes just plan ol' flawed. But what you are trying to put
>> forth just does not make technical sense to me. Furthermore you still
>> have not shown any evidence of DV-AVI non-square pixel specification. If
>> you can adequately build your case to prove, then I will subscribe, but
>> so far you have not been able to do that. Who knows I could still wind
>> up with egg on face, but so far it doesn't look that way.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Al Stu - MVP
>> The world may be round, but I'm still living on the edge.
>>
>> Copyright © 2005, Al Stu (2348410). All Rights Reserved.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rehan" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:%2359AgyDoFHA.2180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Hi Al,
>>>
>>> I appreciate your challenges and consideer them part of a helthy
>>> discussion. I give you full credit for suspecting that something
>>> more/other was going on. However I object to your use of word like
>>> "misconceived notion" etc as it is not fair. It has been confirmed by
>>> Dean that my explanation of non-square resampling also plays a part in
>>> the degraded output of DV AVI although it may not be as significant as
>>> the contribution from the filter. Therefore I would request that you
>>> keep to the truth as it is. Distorting the arguments just to please
>>> somebody's ego is not fair at all.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rehan
>>> MS MVP -- Digital Media
>>> www.rehanfx.org - get transitions and effects for Windows Movie Maker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Al Stu - MVP" <NOYB@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:e9nu2NDoFHA.2080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Yup, My challenging Rehan's misconceived notions was not helpful at
>>>> all. LOL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: Dean Rowe [MS]
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: PapaJohn \(MVP\)
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: John Kelly
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: Al Stu - MVP
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: Rehan
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: Al Stu - MVP
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- From: Rehan
- Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- Prev by Date: Re: Determining the Shape of Pixels and Frames
- Next by Date: Re: 1024 x 576 Video
- Previous by thread: Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- Next by thread: Re: Fuzzy Still Pictures
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
