@royabrown wrote:
You must give me examples of reputable manufacturers or retailers making such '4K quality' claims.
Reframing HD for UHD would consist of expanding each original pixel to a 2x2 block; for SD, this would be a 4.5x4.5 block, roughly (however that might be done!) but it means that 19 out of every 20 pixels on the screen need to be invented, whether by simply duplicating the 1 we had, or by interpolation.
I always wonder why upscaling does not have a 'dumb duplication' mode; perhaps if I saw some such, I might realise why.
But upscaling is a fact of life, even on mere HD Ready sets, as even these exceed what SD broadcasting or even DVDs can provide.
Would you like, though, to come and explain your Nova analogy to the hairdresser who lives opposite us? The gurt fat noisy pipes on the back of his 1.3 Corolla, or whatever it is, would not disgrace my Merc (well, actually they would) as they rumble asthmatically off at 7am.... 😞
I'm pretty sure I saw some such nonsense written on the side of a Panasonic box as I nosed 'round Sainsbury's the other night... For almost a minute I thought they were actually selling 4K BD players....
https://youtu.be/-YmCKAwiJXc
...Sorry! you said reputable manufacturers!
"Reframing HD for UHD would consist of expanding each original pixel to a 2x2 block; for SD, this would be a 4.5x4.5 block, roughly (however that might be done!) but it means that 19 out of every 20 pixels on the screen need to be invented, whether by simply duplicating the 1 we had, or by interpolation."
This is pretty-much what happens... It's rather like drawing on a deflated baloon then expanding the image size by filling it with (often hot is seems) air; then smudging the ink... Sometimes creatively sometimes not.
"But upscaling is a fact of life, even on mere HD Ready sets, as even these exceed what SD broadcasting or even DVDs can provide."
They don't really... There is no more detail in the picture...
You're simply watching the same picture on a subjectively 'better' and often very-much bigger screen than anything that commonly existed in the past; usually with some degree of processing (error diffusion) to hide the line artefacts that would otherwise be apparent. - If you can be bothered researching ancient beasts like the Eidophor (I consider myself honoured to have as a teenager worked in a place that had one and used it!) and/or you would discover that they used the analogue-predecessors (mechanical actually!) of these very same techniques to mask the very same artefacts (with vaying degrees of success) as far back as the late 50s!
In old CRT sets; where it was possible to see line structure on a B&W faceplate, this kind of error was generally hidden by the relatively-course pitch of the colour phosphors... Fine-pitch 'grade 1' CRT picture monitors (and HD ones did/do exist) would often subjectively dissapoint lay-people as they tended to show quite a 'stark' picture by domestic standards; 'upscaling' simply meant driving the tube at a different scan rate!
If you happen to see an SD transmission of something (say) from the late 70s/early 80s that had its external inserts done on 16mm film as opposed to VT look closely at the screen... Very often the line structure (and poor interlace) is quite visible; whereas the VT segments will have faired better through the sampling/quantisation process. - For viewers with access to one of the STV local stations re-runs of "Take The High Road" provide a 'good' example...
For ANY panel it's necessary to write to each pixel on the panel and process (scale) whatever input is being displayed to fit that particular 'pixel map'. Bear in mind too that all LCD panels are written-to progressively... Regardless of source... So there is always degree of 'conversion' (and dithering and error diffusion) there too... This isn't any kind of 'feature' per se - it's simply the 'mechanics' of how the thing has to work...
Just as the wheels on your car have to go round to move you forward at any given rate... I dare say there will be some people that might be taken in by the fact that a 16" wheel turns more slowly at 50MPH that a 14" one!
The scalers inside any given set are designed and optimised to work with the specific panel fitted to that set...
I'm afraid all this 'upscaling' nonsense as it's being sold to the general public is about as credible as when, back in the seventies and eighties (and I suppose even now) they sold 'HiFi' systems by the watt and drew meaningless graphs on the front of cheap stereos...
If you COULD 'create' detail that was never in an original recording trust me; the production companies would be lining up to do it! - In the past fifteen-twenty years it's been necessary (i.e. you'll be shut down if you don't) to move from 4:3 SD to 16:9 SD, to HD on tape to file-based and now we'll have to migrate to 4K... Most professional cameramen (who are largely independent tradesmen) will have two, three maybe four perfectly-good cameras lying around - each having cost the price of a very good second-hand car - that have been rendered 'obsolete' simply by technological changes... All this in the face of diminishing margins...
If there were 'upscaling' hardware or software that REALLY turned HD into UHD - I'd happily pay £10K for it! - That would be about 1/3 of the price of moving the first trenche of production kit to the new format!
Also - if you know of any way of turning lead into gold...
Can't help with the hairdresser sadly; we have a few 'round here too!
