In Reply to: Re: just checked on the web site posted by John Kotches on September 20, 2005 at 05:51:16:
*** The noise they (Aloglith) are removing is mosquito noise, not film grain. ***Yes, I'm aware of the difference. I'm specifically thinking of titles where "video noise" is a creative decision inserted into the material - one of Steven Soderbergh's films was like this (can't remember the title though, but it didn't do well at the box office). the whole point of the film was that the audience can tell that it was shot on a cheap videocam - in fact Steven says in the commentary it was still too clean and they had to digitally insert additional noise. i would hate to see what HQV may do to it.
*** I'd like to see the HQV side by side with the latest Faroudja solution and see how they compare on a bigger variety of video material. ***
Faroudja isn't the king anymore, although they are still very good on interlaced video sources. For example, the nvidia puredecoder solution runs rings around faroudja for film recognition and bad edit detection - i've compared the two together on the WHQL DVD Annex 3.0 disc.
However, I would suspect (based purely on the material on the HQV benchmark DVD) HQV may be at least as good as Faroudja for video sources, and superior for film sources. Throw in noise reduction/enhancement, and i think HQV will probably be a clear winner.
However, compare HQV alongside the teranex broadcast quality Image Enhancer, and i suspect you will still see a significant gap, and that would be the difference between motion adaptive and motion compensation.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: just checked on the web site - Christine Tham 06:14:18 09/20/05 (1)
- Re: just checked on the web site - John Kotches 06:34:14 09/20/05 (0)