Topaz Video AI tests?
 

Hello, I wanted to do an encoding test with the software Topaz Video AI.
I got the DVD Z1 a the series The Fall Guy (Pilot episode)

The French audio track comes from the French DVD Z2

Your opinion ? An attachment

AI prediction cannot be trusted, A thorough inspection is required, Most sharpening and de-noising filters already exist in script software and do a decent job, often better than AI.

The first couple seconds of video look excellent. Later on there is a lot of noise. It would be interesting to see the source files. can you upload them so that we can compare both.

You can also try this software (No AI), i've tried it long time ago, it did a good job on some sources

http://www.infognition.com/VideoEnhancer/

There's no "AI" in that Topaz software. It's just puffy marketing for a $200 product that's vastly inferior to free methods. Topaz has always been low-end software, not a surprise whatsoever. The output from Topaz is riddled with artifacts, weird and messy output. It's a non-starter, waste of time.

I find most upscaling to be completely pointless.

DVDs (MPEGs) have inherent issues that mere upscalers cannot handle. Those need to be sorted first, before even attempting to sharpen and increase resolution. This is where Avisynth comes in. You pre-clean, then filter.

This is one reason (of several) why Topaz software sucks, it just amplifies noise, gets confused by noise.

Topaz VEIA has been discussed in depth, at several sites, for several years now.

Far more interesting is discussions of *GAN* methods of upscale. Those samples are often truly impressive, unlike Topaz output. poisondeathray, Selur, and some others have discuss it in various places, spanning multiple sites. It can be hard to follow along. But the samples are often interesting and impressive, showing actual quality upsize methods.

A second excerpt. Original DVD and upscaled version.

Not bad at all.

-- merged --

Just watched both files on my big TV. The Topaz version is an impressive improvement.

-- merged --

So, no comments at all from the purists. :hmm:

It's almost completely still footage that's been sharpened. It's just not that impressive. I downloaded it, saw it, then deleted it.

When I'm impressed, I say so.

BTW, I'm not a purist of any kind. I'm not nuts, aka not some "audiophile" or "videophile" (which always sounded way to close to "pedophile" for my liking, yikes!). I don't look for issues, or think I see one where none exist. No, not me at all. I just don't want artifacts and crappy quality to ruin watching enjoyment. That shouldn't be a high expectation, and yet it sadly often is. Too many people cling to crap quality, then give excuses on why it's "fine". When given typical footage, not just still scenes, Topaz fails. It just does. I wish that were not the case, as I don't like Avisynth scripting either, never have. And yet, that's what is needed for quality upscale right now.

I like the upscale, though the original was badly deinterlaced


The fall guy ...that's all my younger days hehe

DVD original= 29.970 FPS (2:3 pull down)

Before using Toapz, I made a lossless capture with VirtualDub using the IVTC filter to go to 23.976 FPS. Topaz is not able to do this.

-- merged --

I did a test with an NTSC Commercial VHS. (720p)

American History X (1998) Open Matte 1.33:1

(AUDIO 1) French dubbed in Québec (VHS)

(AUDIO 2) French dubbed in France (BluRay)

(AUDIO 3) English (Original Version) (BLuray)

JVC HR-9600EU (PAL) (TBC/ NR) ON - Blackmagic Intensity Pro 4k - Topaz A.I
Oncoded with RipBoot264 (AviSynth)

Hard to judge when we don't have the baseline video to compare.

That card doesn't have S-Video in. That would be a disadvantage, I would have thought, as your 9600 can output it.

480 to 720 upscaling is very damaging in my opinion, Since you are comparing Blu-ray you should have at least upscaled to 1080. Besides, 720 does not make any sense anymore and no more native monitors to support it, plus every HD/UHD display panel has to do its own upscaling "again" from 720 to at least 1080. 720 is a bastard resolution that should have never existed to begin with.

I don't agree with this. 720p is essentially the 352x480 (Half D1) of HD. It has a place, but less so with time (aka compression and bandwidth; both delivery and processing bandwidth). I rarely mess with either 352x480 or 720p anymore, but it's not zero.

You are talking about 720 horizontal pixels, I'm talking about 720 vertical lines. But it's not really about 720 lines number, it's more about what you do with it in modern display technology. If someone has 720p files from back in the day recorded from a broadcast or a 720p camcorder, so be it, But upscaling to 720 in 2023, what for? In an ideal world multiple integer is what we want when upscaling, but that's not always the case, However the higher the resolution you upscale to the less artifacts you get (less rounding errors), I don't expect anyone to take my word for it but anyone can do their own forensic tests as I did to find out for themselves.

No, I'm referring to 352x480 (SD) and 720p (HD) being low bandwidth compromises, and yet still quality.

The problem with 480i/p direct to 1080p is artifacts. Sometimes you have to have a middle step (ie, 720p) to mitigate. It's the same for blindly deinterlacing to 59.94p instead of 29.97p (due to a false notion of "throwing away" data that 50% never existed anyway). In ideal condition, 59.94, 1080p (or more), sure. But things don't always work that ways. Why? Artifacts that make it obnoxious to watch and enjoy. Must mitigate, extra steps, maybe still some compromises. "Only upscale to 1080" is dogma, not actual practical advice. The goal is 1080, reality may not allow it.

I once had a meeting with studio execs over this very topic. How to balance scale and bandwidth, and possible artifacts from the various methods. We were deciding on a standard for the internal releasing system, as the external specs had obvious issues (which translated to much higher costs). I still remember that meeting, and how the CEO (rightly) saw that almost anything SD or HD looked comparable on a projector from a normal viewing distance. The differentiating factor in quality wasn't the resolution, but instead the artifacting. And that's why they headhunted me. Our goal was restoration, minimizing artfacts, not "blowing up" video.

I disagree, that's a double butcher, Frames are a different story.

FYI, 720p line-triples perfectly to 2160p.

AI-upscaling a DVD to 1080p creates distracting inconsistencies. This is why I prefer to AI-upscale DVDs only to 720p and then let the TV stretch the image the rest of the way to fill the screen.

Yep. :congrats:

And so does 1080p, double-line perfectly to 2160p.
Unfortunately as I stated above and based on my own findings upscaling from 480 to 720 incur more artifacts than upscaling from 480 to 1080. Not sure what distracting inconsistencies is but I'm gonna guess it has something to do with de-interlacing artifacts.

With AI-upscaling, I see pixel-perfect, super-thin lines, and fuzzy ones that the AI couldn't upscale, all in the same frame. It's unnatural and breaks my immersion in the video like a really cheesy special effect. Better to leave it a little fuzzy and let my brain fill in the details.