Need HD encoder or something?
- Thread starter PP Mguire
- Start date
Looks like Virtualdub and the HC encoder should do what you want.
http://www.videohelp.com/forum/arch...vd-lots-of-questions-please-help-t333951.html
This link is actually about turning single frame images into HD video but the software should be the same for you I suspect.
http://www.videohelp.com/forum/arch...vd-lots-of-questions-please-help-t333951.html
This link is actually about turning single frame images into HD video but the software should be the same for you I suspect.
name='PP Mguire' said:
You cant do that - you wont ever be able to increase the quality of a .avi or anything like that as its already been encoded.
Its like trying to increase a 64kbps MP3 to a 320kbps one - it aint going to happen.
You can "SCALE" DVD's to HD Resolution but they still wont look any where as good as HD Content.
name='PP Mguire' said:
Cos your taking it from the Source you cant make a 64kbps into a Lossless audio file as it has already been encoded and lossed parts of the sound.
name='PP Mguire' said:
That make no sense with what you are asking - you can not make a .avi file equal the same quality as HD, you can increase the resolution but that does not make it HD Quality.
Rastalovich
New member
It`s a similar arguement to alot of the movies they show on the HD channels. Many of them don`t exist in HD, but they`re encoded better than the standard mpg u get through a regular digital signal. Doesn`t mean it looks any better than the standard dvd version of the film.
You can upscale DVD very well to 1080i and the image will look VERY decent for DVD but will be nothing compared to a true 1080i source.
http://projecthtpc.co.uk/software3results.html
Check the above page for images showing the differnce of well scalled DVDs
http://projecthtpc.co.uk/software3results.html
Check the above page for images showing the differnce of well scalled DVDs
Rastalovich
New member
Yeah cos which ever way u look at it, u`r making 1 pixel = 4 pixels (as a bad example).
As on the fly thing its hard to explain. They kept on saying how while watching the movie they where making it HD on the fly and how they needed such a great processor to do it or else their sound and all would be off. Idk, it was over my head. But i figured since i can encode audio files i should be able to encode movies as well.
You are on about Transencoding which is changing the format of the file on the fly while your streaming it.
This is commonly done for the Xbox 360 at the moment to allow you to watch Divx, XVID files on it by Transencoding them to WMV on the fly.
You cant make .avi's HD as if you could we would have to pay a fortune for HDTV we would just upscale it all in this dream world you have
This is commonly done for the Xbox 360 at the moment to allow you to watch Divx, XVID files on it by Transencoding them to WMV on the fly.
You cant make .avi's HD as if you could we would have to pay a fortune for HDTV we would just upscale it all in this dream world you have
To use a simple example.
Say you have 2 digital cameras, identical in every way except one is 3 megapixel and the other 6 megapixel.
If you take the same photo with both cameras you will find the 3 megapixel camera produces an image which is at a lower resolution, it is less pixels wide and less pixels high.
You can take the 3 megapixel image and stretch it to the same resolution as the 6 megapixel image but in doing so the stretching routine has to insert pixels to increase the width and height. It does this by guessing what colour each inserted pixel should be. There are a number of clever ways to do this and each produces slightly different results.
If you compare the stretched 3 megapixel image with the 6 megapixel one you will find that it doesn't look quite as good, doesn't look quite as real as the 6 megapixel one.
This is because the 3 megapixel image started at a lower quality, it contained less information about the real scene. The process of stretching it to the same resolution/size as the 6 megapixel image added pixels, but these pixels are guesses and not actual information about the real scene, not quality.
The same is true for each frame of a video. Yes, you can stretch a frame to the size of HD video but all you're doing is adding pixels, not quality.
Say you have 2 digital cameras, identical in every way except one is 3 megapixel and the other 6 megapixel.
If you take the same photo with both cameras you will find the 3 megapixel camera produces an image which is at a lower resolution, it is less pixels wide and less pixels high.
You can take the 3 megapixel image and stretch it to the same resolution as the 6 megapixel image but in doing so the stretching routine has to insert pixels to increase the width and height. It does this by guessing what colour each inserted pixel should be. There are a number of clever ways to do this and each produces slightly different results.
If you compare the stretched 3 megapixel image with the 6 megapixel one you will find that it doesn't look quite as good, doesn't look quite as real as the 6 megapixel one.
This is because the 3 megapixel image started at a lower quality, it contained less information about the real scene. The process of stretching it to the same resolution/size as the 6 megapixel image added pixels, but these pixels are guesses and not actual information about the real scene, not quality.
The same is true for each frame of a video. Yes, you can stretch a frame to the size of HD video but all you're doing is adding pixels, not quality.
The above is a very good explanation. To encode (compress) something in hd, you need either an uncompressed hd source, or say a hd-dvd/blue ray film. Trying to make a low compressed .avi (im guessing you have 700mb rips or something similar) into a hd format would only create an excessive file with a stretched picture. If you have a hdtv, or have a nice monitor, then watching content you already have should just be done like normal, and let something scale it appropriately (like you can get upscaling dvd players to give a slightly better image on large sets), and from now on get content in hd, simple.
Ok well these people that are talking about their encoding dont have HD-DVD or Blu-Ray players and have HD movies on their computer. Im sure some torrent but i know one guy cant. He dosent go to LANs and dosent have a fast internet connection to DL a file that big. Thats why i was wondering how he makes his movies such high quality. Im sure there has to be a way.
name='PP Mguire' said:
Maybe they're not HD quality at all, maybe they're stretched.
Maybe a friend with a portable USB HDD gave them to him.
Maybe he has a camcorder and he went to the cinema and recorded the movie... In which case the recording might be HD format but if you've ever seen a CAM movie you'll know the quality (as measured against the original recording) is rubish - another good example of something being HD size/format but not HD quality.
On their computers at LAN parties and their houses on their big TVs. One guy bought a quad core just for this. I was sitting there trying to understand what they where doing but couldnt exactly grasp it. But, it was no stretched image. 1920x1200 and extremely clear. His CPU usage while playing the movie was full the whole time. (On a Core 2 Duo E6700 movie running on second core by itself)
And most people who have slower internet (like me) have cap levels so trying to get 23gig worth of one file is almost impossible.
And most people who have slower internet (like me) have cap levels so trying to get 23gig worth of one file is almost impossible.
I give up trying to explain this to you, i suggest the next time you see them at a lan part you look at the media info of the .avi's they are using to see what base res they are.
They must have some magic scaling machine the likes that no one else in the world have ever seen.
They must have some magic scaling machine the likes that no one else in the world have ever seen.
