Why tying "video quality" to frame size and rate is dumb.

[Koopiskeva]

Also,

People seem to miss that TestosteROS is strictly used as an example here.

You can say that all you want, but it's really common knowledge that upscaling decreases quality. This thread isn't anything more than place to Baww about the fact that some people didn't like your video, under the thinly veiled guise of some sort of public service presentation.

Fact 1: I am NOT the original poster.
Fact 2:

good video quality and sound quality (not a 10 though because its not 720p or 1080p).

Let's break that quote down shall we:

"good video quality" and then "(not a 10 because it is NOT 720p or 1080p)"

SO.. in THAT regard.. the correlation is "unless the video is 720p or higher, then a video is not to receive a 10"

Therefore, he makes the strict correlation that only 720p or higher videos can be rated a 10.

The point of the thread is that resolution does not equal video quality. In fact, 720p or higher resolution DOES NOT EQUAL HIGH DEFINITION. This means, the expectation that because a video does not have a resolution of 720p or higher is ENTIRELY INCORRECT. -Reda- made no mention of the actual quality of the video itself, but rather judged it simply by a resolution. So, PAY ATTENTION.

On a side note, while I do care if people like my videos to some degree, and will often argue back about things I disagree with, I sure as hell don't try to disguise complaints about comments made on the videos I make. And tons of people don't like things I've made in the past and will continue to do so, so don't give me none of that lip. I'm fully aware that my videos aren't the greatest things ever (not even close and neither is anyone else's) and I have never claimed them to be.

[trythil]

Sorry but I can't understand who are you supporting. Those saying that upscale is dumb or those that want us to upscale tracks (@matt: sorry man, not everything in the mep is out on brd ) because 720p is better.
Either way, I'm not bothered by the vote itself actually, it's more about wondering why it was lowered for resolution matters when the resolution was due to the fact that half of the sources were dvd only.

The quality's a non-issue here. The issue is the huge bitchfest people are cooking up since they apparently can't take an opinion with an ounce of grace or complacency. That's my problem.

Would it have made a difference if I had dragged out the RoS3 introduction instead? I mean, it would have taken me longer to do: I don't have the files handy (they're archived, and may have broken paths that need to be fixed), whereas the molecule scene was in ~/prj/testosteros. But I can repeat this demonstration with those files, if you want. The result is the same.

The "maligned" adjective refers to my publicized opinion of the introduction sequence. You can find by reading the announcement thread for "that thing".

===

I really don't care whether or not people like "that thing"; it is irrelevant, and as Niotex pointed out, was merely used as a convenient example. What I do care about is correcting what I see as a erroneous mental construction.

You may recall that I once posted, on this board, a request to not confuse "free software" with "open source software", and described the differences from my point of view. That post was met with roughly the same level of accusation, but I did make some headway. Maybe.

(let me get philosophical here)

What people write -- what they say, the language they use -- is often a good window into how they think. (For you linguists: yes, I know Sapir-Whorf is unproven and (for all I know; I haven't kept up too well with language research) possibly even discredited, but linguistic constructions have to come from somewhere, right?)

I saw, in that opinion quoted way at the top of this thread, a link between frame size/frame rate and the judgment of "video quality" that, in my (hopefully reasonable) opinion, is wrong. (And dumb, but I will admit to using some invective there for theatrics.) I saw an opportunity to announce my position on that link, and invite discussion.

(end)

Therefore, the opinion was the trigger for this post -- you are correct about that -- but I do not care about scoring.

The aforementioned mental connection isn't dumb merely because of raster upscaling. It's dumb because even if you have source files like I do, and can scale infinitively, having a perfectly sharp 16k image doesn't mean anything when (say) your models within the scene are of such limited resolution that ~16,000 pixels of vertical resolution reveal the polygonal nature of your curved objects, as occurred here.

In a deeper sense, having a really huge, perfectly sharp image doesn't mean anything when AMVs are moving more towards integrating more and more original content: if you have the source files, you can scale to the sky.

[godix]

Half the posters in this thread could really benefit from this site.

[-Reda-]

Also,

People seem to miss that TestosteROS is strictly used as an example here.

You can say that all you want, but it's really common knowledge that upscaling decreases quality. This thread isn't anything more than place to Baww about the fact that some people didn't like your video, under the thinly veiled guise of some sort of public service presentation.

This. And allow me to fix my statement. "It wasn't bluray so naturally the quality couldn't be any better. I'm not giving a 10 to a video in standard definition, this isn't complicated. Go be 12 on youtube."

/thread

[mirkosp]

I'm not giving a 10 to a video in standard definition

So basically you are saying that people should drop using SD sources if they want full rates on video quality?

...wat?

[-Reda-]

I'm not giving a 10 to a video in standard definition

So basically you are saying that people should drop using SD sources if they want full rates on video quality?

...wat?

No but don't expect to be rated the very best when theres better out there :/

[blabbler]

i think you should look into nurbs modelling and/or whatever mesh smoothing options blender has.

[Knowname]

OMG is it the Ayumix thing again?? lol

Compairing an MEP (or multi source video, not sure what Testosteros is...) to an AMV is apples to Oranges. Upscaling is dumb, makes it look worse, but to you that's a 10?? Sorry, no. For a proper scale you need a baseline and your baseline (top of the line 'current' amv) does not correlate. #1 'current' is a VERY dynamic thing. It will change in a few years, maybe a few months. will you or CAN you go back and change all your 10s to 9s or 9s to 8s? I seriously doubt you'll be able to keep up with that so with your current system your answer would be to always just give all 1's, your comment being 'I gave you all 1's for future proofing purposes, enjoy your 1's you probably don't deserve it.... yet... but I have no opinion. I apparantly think way too highly of myself, however, so I feel I must share my refuse with the rest of the universe, have a nice day'.

HAHA! No? bottom line get a baseline, compare apples to apples or your 'opinion' is simply invalid. And leave MEPs alone. That's all there is to it :/.

[trythil]

i think you should look into nurbs modelling and/or whatever mesh smoothing options blender has.

Blender has support for NURBS spheres, but I didn't use them here because NURBS spheres don't currently play nice with the deformation modifiers I was using. As far as I know.

The atom and atomic bond meshes were modeled at a fairly low resolution. I used smooth shading on them, which makes things look smooth at the resolutions I was working at; but once you get to 2k the cracks start showing up.

I could subdivide the sphere meshes a couple times, which would help.

[Ikore]

Half the posters in this thread could really benefit from this site.

hey, that site is actually fun!

...

No but don't expect to be rated the very best when theres better out there :/

someone just discover hot water