Upconvert video in hardware or software?

[TheBobBobSled]

Is video upconversion quality comparable in hardware versus software? Can results be better using either method, or is one method preferred over the other? For example is capturing a standard def resolution via capture card, and then upconverting by rendering in software to a high resolution format, say 1080p, better than having a versatile capture card with upconversion directly on the card? Granted there are lots of variables, but all things considered which approach is probably the better one to pursue for the best results?

[latreche34]

No, never do that. Capture first, de-interlace and then and only then upscale if needed.

[lordsmurf]

The key here is "if needed". Most upscaling is pointless, not needed at all. Learn to appreciate the content for what it is, in terms of resolution. The irony is that too many people overlook actual issues that need a restoration, and instead want to upscale for no reason.

All SD videos should be captured at max SD, never HD. It gets massively screwed up otherwise, interlace gets borked, etc.

[timtape]

Upscaling does help before data compression is performed, such as Youtube compresses whether we like it or not. Usually, data compressing a 1080 file does a lot less damage to an SD digital video file than compressing the SD file itself. For this reason more people are now uploading original VHS, 8mm etc and pro analog era TV shows to YT as HD. Just doesnt degrade the picture nearly as much.

[latreche34]

We've had this discussion before here somewhere, What I found it annoying is that newer TVs and hardware treat SD materials as a second class and often butcher it, If one does not have a proper SD display the options are limited, get a dedicated stand alone high quality upscaler from back in the day for your modern HD display or do a software de-interlacing and upscaling yourself, It's no longer just YouTube, Every modern device is doing the same thing with very few exceptions geared towards videophiles like the Oppo Blu-ray and media players, they still offer analog inputs but expect to drop an arm and leg for one of those devices.

[lordsmurf]

I think there's a bias here lately, in terms of "upscale for Youtube" in upscale conversations. I'd suggest most/all desire to upscale has nothing to do with Youtube, so I'd vet the question before immediately jumping to that use case. This OP made no mentioned of Youtube.

I've not run across a TV that butchers in that manner. What I mostly see is idiot broadcasters, such as local antenna Grit or MeTV, where it's pure deinterlace mess to watch. And that was very likely poor workflow that upscale while still interlaced content.

[Augusto Duarte]

If you are upscaling before recording, keep in mind that the upscaler is doing the Analog to Digital conversion, and if you don't have the whole TBC setup beforehand, it will not do this for you (the Retrotink 5x Pro is ok in this case but I highly doubt it's a TBC substitute in that sense, since it was made for a media that is inherently more stable). I'd say to not bother much with this usecase.

If you are upscaling after (the proper) recording, then software upscaling will definitely be better (in terms of flexibility and end result quality after tuning), and you wouldn't need video-out and then in again. Here, specially if it's for local content viewing, madVR is amazing. There can be even better software-based upscaling (AI-based or not) that is not realtime like the ones in madVR, but it's not my specialty so I don't know much yet.

If it's for posting on youtube, then I agree with what has been mentioned above: it is generally good to upscale before youtube "butchers" it.

On another note:
If you are outputting to view from the computer to the monitor/TV, make sure that the resolution of the TV is matching with your OS (e.g. if it's a 4k TV, make sure you are outputting 4k from the OS; then, the media player is responsible for upscaling an 480p video for example - and here madVR will do it's magic, for example - or even the common players like VLC and Windows Media Player have decent realtime upscaling).

Continuing the example, if the video is say 480p, don't change the resolution of the OS to that unless the TV is also 480p. Again, if the TV is 4k for example, and you output 480p (from the OS), then the TV will be responsible for upscaling, and it will almost always be subpar (there are some exceptions like some Sony models that do a decent job afaik but definitely worse than software based upscaling).
Almost all post plasma-era tvs that I tested upscale badly from 480p and similar to their native resolutions. It's not awful, but it can be done way better, both for gaming and for video content. Again, from what I've tested at least.

The exception is interlaced content (480i, 576i, 1080i, etc). It won't be just awful (if the TV upscales it), it will be atrocious. The best approach here is using avisynth with qtgmc or yadif to de-interlace it well beforehand, but I don't know if this can be done in realtime (maybe if the PC is powerful?), but even automatic deinterlacing from any media player that handles interlaced content will be better than a TV afaik. The deinterlacing done by external hardware upscalers can be good but it's usually badly implemented weave or bob deinterlacing. You will need to check case by case. If you are using composite instead of s-video, you need to check the quality of the hardware comb filter as well.

The point is knowing where (in terms of quality and practicality) should you do the processing, if any.

[latreche34]

Not to mention that software upscaling is usually done in less than real time speed, hence the quality. Hardware upscaling has to be done in real time therefore compromises has to be made and upscaling chips are usually very cheap to begin with.

Thanks for the Plasma TVs feedback, I never owned a HD plasma TV, I know HD LCD ones sucked. Never tried a dedicated Plasma SD TV, do they even exist, I would like to get my hands on one for monitoring purposes during capturing, 24-32" would be perfect, But I highly doubt I can find one with just scan feature where overscan is removed.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusto Duarte

the Retrotink 5x Pro is ok in this case but I highly doubt it's a TBC substitute in that sense, since it was made for a media that is inherently more stable

It's not whatsoever. It's lesser than ADI chips, and those are already not effective to date.