Quantcast Avisynth: Lanczos vs Spline Resizers - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
04-23-2007, 06:51 AM
supermule supermule is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Donkeyland
Posts: 210
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have seen mostly lanczos being used for most of the resizes and in some scripts also like LSF etc.

Whereas I also found that lanczos creates more artifacts than spline and then we have to use cleaning filters to remove them.

Although spline also tends to oversharp sometimes but atleast it doesnt add artifacts.

That was me, but whats your opinion about these resizers and what do you prefer when :

- Upscaling
- Downscaling
- Low bitrate encodes

and why ???
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
04-23-2007, 07:01 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermule
Whereas I also found that lanczos creates more artifacts than spline and then we have to use cleaning filters to remove them.
I don't think anyone is using cleaning filters to remove artifacts due to resizers. Or you are talking about filters I don't know ?

Quote:
- Upscaling
- Downscaling
- Low bitrate encodes
I need to do upscaling to send picture from my PC to my HD rear-projector (display in 1920*1280). For that I use spline. But for my KDVD encode, that I always do in downscale, I'm still using Lanczos. I remember flicking lines sometimes in my tests with spline.
For low bitrate I prefer to remove LS() but keep lanczos. Actually I never used other thing but maybe LS+bicubic can be also a good combo.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
04-23-2007, 11:51 PM
supermule supermule is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Donkeyland
Posts: 210
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sorry, I think I was not clear enough. I mean we use filters to remove those DCT effects and for the ringing caused by Lanczos.

In the all three Matrix on one DVD also, lanczos was used.

but on low bitrates I agree with you that Bicubic gives a good result. I use it with c=0.44 parameter to avoid the artifacts and retain some sharpness.

As far as LS is concerned, I read the script, it uses lanczos internally for the resize. So i really wonder if lanczos is actually the preferred filter to use for all types of encodes.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
04-24-2007, 06:51 AM
supermule supermule is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Donkeyland
Posts: 210
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Found this on the avisynth mediawiki
Code:
LanczosResize is an alternative to BicubicResize with high values of c about 0.6 ... 0.75 which produces quite strong sharpening. It usually offers better quality (fewer artifacts) and a sharp image. 

Lanczos was created for AviSynth because it retained so much detail, more so even than BicubicResize(x,y,0,0.75). As you might know, the more detail a frame has, the more difficult it is to compress it. This means that Lanczos is NOT suited for low bitrate video, the various Bicubic flavours are much better for this. If however you have enough bitrate then using Lanczos will give you a better picture, but in general I do not recommend using it for 1 CD rips because the bitrate is usually too low (there are exceptions of course).
Crux : Lanczos is NOT suited for low bitrate video

Also interesting comparison between some resizers is given here.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
04-24-2007, 07:16 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermule
Crux : Lanczos is NOT suited for low bitrate video
Com'on ! That's not a scoop !

They are just saying that the sharper the picture, the worse is the compressibility. Of course Lanczos if worse than bicubic, the same way than bicubic 0.75 is worse than bicubic 0.33 for the exact same reason !
I don't see what is so surprizing for you in these 8 words.

Let me tell you an other scoop : Spline is NOT suited for low bitrate video (as spline is as sharp as lanczos is...).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
04-24-2007, 10:35 AM
supermule supermule is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Donkeyland
Posts: 210
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
nothing scoppy, just posting some information I found
Reply With Quote
  #7  
04-24-2007, 12:29 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermule
nothing scoppy, just posting some information I found
BTW the comparison article is interresting.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
04-25-2007, 01:04 AM
supermule supermule is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Donkeyland
Posts: 210
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
although lanczos was not part of the tests, but amongst the Bilinear, Bicubic, Spline16 and Spline36 resizers known to us, spline36 emerged as the winner closely followed by spline16.

I wonder what Sinc resizer is, since it was the best amongst them.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
04-25-2007, 05:23 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Actually the test is not about resizer but about interpolating methods when doing positional operation (here rotation) on a picture. May be sync is not usable for developping a resizer.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
04-25-2007, 11:35 PM
supermule supermule is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Donkeyland
Posts: 210
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Code:
Manipulation of digital images often requires resampling of the pixel data. Usually, the pixel positions in the transformed image do not coincide with grid positions. Therefore, an interpolation algorithm has to be applied to somehow derive the pixel data for these in-between positions. The effort spent for this interpolation is crucial for the image quality of the result image.
Code:
 Several authors have judged interpolator quality by testing enlargements. However, there are quite a few problems associated with that, the most important being that there is no mathematically unique solution for digital image enlargements, and, hence, no really objective test. A more practical test is a rotation of an image by some arbitrary angle, which can be easily tested against the original image. The more such rotations the image survives intact, the better is the algorithm. This test is also readily available, since almost any Graphics-program has a rotate function.
They do talk about image manipulations and enlargements.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
04-26-2007, 03:26 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Read again and you see that they say exactly what I'm saying : by opposition to other tests, in this article they decided to not speak about interpolator in resizer but in positionnal transfo.

Sync does not exists as resizer, that is why I suppose (only that) that it is not suitable to developp a resizer. Or it's just because noone tried to .
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Avisynth: Gaussian Vs Lanczos4 Vs Lanczos Resize supermule Avisynth Scripting 3 10-13-2005 10:21 AM
Avisynth: help with Lanczos Resize in FitCD ? Zyphon Avisynth Scripting 76 09-10-2005 02:40 PM
Avisynth: Resizers - What to use and how? audioslave Avisynth Scripting 4 08-13-2005 11:12 AM
Avisynth: Bilinear Vs Bicubic Vs Lanczos? Anonymous Avisynth Scripting 4 08-18-2003 08:17 AM
Avisynth: How come not many people use Lanczos resizing? audi2honda Avisynth Scripting 3 06-16-2003 02:16 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd