View Single Post
Old 9th April 2009, 11:20   #33  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8 View Post
thanks! both, haali and madvr look quite similar to each other, apart from that one can see that haali outputs a bit too much red.
but then im not that good on such graphic specific technical stuff, perhaps someone else sees differences?
If you look at the "cF" comparison image from a further distance, the madVR image looks slighty smoother (less jaggied) to me than the Haali Renderer image. The difference is not big, though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt8 View Post
is it actually possible technically to further improve the graphic quality of your renderer (hinting that it looks similar to haali, so this is basically best what can be achieved)? I mean at some point there must be a limit, when it looks exactly like the 'real' image looks like. but how is it possible that it actually looks different on each renderer? and how it is possible to perhaps make it look even better, but then again its not done by other renderers? (dont understand the process how such things can looks differently)
With Blu-Ray the luma (brightness) information is stored in 1920x1080 pixels, however, the chroma (color) information is only stored in 960x540 pixels. So someone somewhere has to upscale those 960x540 chroma information to 1920x1080. There are a multitude of upscaling filters available, all have their advantages and disadvantages. That's why different renderers produce different results. madVR uses a very soft upscaler for chroma to get rid of jaggies. I don't think you can get much better results than what madVR already does right now for chroma upsampling.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote