Avisynth: Bilinear Vs Bicubic Vs Lanczos?
 

My question is:

I'm quite used with Script's Language such as Perl and i have playing around with Kwag Optimized (tuned) Script.... (tryng diff filters and reso.)

And i think Kwag make a hell of A GOOD JOB :wink:


But my doubt cames when seeing Bicubic Resize....

I see things like this

Bilinear - smooth
Bicubic - sharpen
Lanczos - Both of the two (middle term)

So why not use Lanczos instead of bicubic, i must confess i haven't made a test but maybe you did and can answer me this.

Thanks.

Sniffer.

sniffer

only my opinion after many tests with 320x240
to 480x480 with dvds sources:

Bilinear - "moving ants" and some "mosquitos" around the edges.
Bicubic - my choice, the best using with sharpen, asharp or unfilter.
Lanczos - "strange artefacts" and too much sharp in the edges.

maybe the results can be better with more resolutions....
like 702x480 but my player don't like it, then i never test!


:)

Snifer,

Avisynth manual says there's little difference when you are shrinking by bilinear or bicubic, unless you use a sharpening factor in bicubic. I generally do my progressive stuff from DVD using bicubic (I use KWAG script) at 720x480. I do my interlaced stuff (musicals, etc) at 352x480 and then I use lanczos since in this res the additional sharpening is needed. I also use lanczos when converting MPEG4 stuff.
Quotes from Avisynth docs:
" if you are shrinking it, you are probably just as well off, or even better off, with BilinearResize"
"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."

[]'s
Vmesquita

Are you talking Lanczos or BiCubic?

He was talking about Lanczos. All was in the same quote (see the ").
Or read the avisynth manual where this sentence was extracted :-)