Shoutbox

picture one.

you should have done this as a public poll with no posting allowed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor


you should have done this as a public poll with no posting allowed.

---

No, he's showing us what a piece of software can do so..

Hmm I would think number one is the original since it is more clear and looks nicer

quote:

---

Originally posted by ValSpy
Hmm I would think number one is the original since it is more clear and looks nicer

---

he's already said number two

quote:

---

Originally posted by UTI

quote:

---

Originally posted by ValSpy
Hmm I would think number one is the original since it is more clear and looks nicer

---

he's already said number two

---

Yes I know that, but I am stating my opinion

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jhrono

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor


you should have done this as a public poll with no posting allowed.

---

No, he's showing us what a piece of software can do so..

---

yeah... messing things up....

If I take an original picture, compress it (thus making quality lower), then running even another peice of software on it to clean up the compressing (making the image less contrast and bright) I don't call that exactly positive....

Does it look better to the human eye Cookie? Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by linx05
Does it look better to the human eye Cookie? Yes.

---

ermm... actually no...

How can a mangled and compressed copy of an already compressed format even look better (... to the human eye)? (unless you go for that effect of course, but we're talking about a DVD copy here). It doesn't make sense in theory and it doesn't make sense in practice IMHO...

By compressing, blurring, etc... you lose quality, you do not enhance quality.

A recompressed and edited copy of a DVD always looks worse than the original, even if your copy program applies some contrast filters and/or sharpness filters, it still would be worse than the original.


----

PS: and by comparing two still shots (and not good ones for the purpose of this test/doing this poll for that matter) you can not judge quality of a recompressed copy of a compressed format at all (let alone base that judgement on images which were again compressed from the compressed copy of a compressed format).

I guessed second picture first off (without looking at any other posts).

It is pretty easy to tell (at least for me) based on the darker areas in the images as well as the fact I thought that Woody's hand was cleaner in the second image (ddunk).

As Cookie said, it is hard to judge the two still shots of a scene in a movie. You've taken a shot which is blurred because of the motion which makes it even harder to tell. You'd notice if you played back the whole scenes - and especially on a high resolution device (or good quality monitor - which is why it made it very easy for me to pick the second one).

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
By compressing, blurring, etc... you lose quality, you do not enhance quality.

---

Excuse me for saying this, but, derrrr. You'll always lose quality. But using different filters it can clean up artifacts the original had. Not all professional DVDs are authored properly you know.

I've performed the test with members of the family, and friends using the original DVD, and the backup copy. Nobody has been able to pick the backup copy. Everyone thinks it looks better.

I didn't use two videos from the DVDs because of legal concern (not sure if it would be <i>entirely</i> legal or not).