Talk:VidFIRE
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Can this be applied to film?[edit]
One question not answered here is whether VidFIRE can be applied to motion pictures. Would it be possible to VidFIRE, for example, Casablanca? Not that there's any real reason to, except as a novelty, however I have heard VidFIREing referenced as a possible answer to the issue of resolution problems with high-def releases of old film and TV. 68.146.41.232 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- VidFIRE only interpolates new temporal resolution. For 24p material like Casablanca, everyday resampling techniques would be better used for upscaling to hi-def. Of course, one could VidFIRE film-sourced material - but why you would you want to? What you would gain from it? Marwood 08:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree there's no creative reason, but it would make an interesting experiment. Also, remember that videotape is a closer approximation of what we actually see with our eyes. As opposed to film which adds a slickness and sheen, not to mention the subtle flickering of 24 fps. I could see someone running VidFire on, say, Casblanca, simply to see what things might have looked like with our own eyes. It's a curiosity thing. To use a recent example, the 2007 season of Doctor Who was actually videotaped and then transferred to film. The recent DVD release includes footage - deleted scenes and outtakes - that has not gone through the transfer process, and as such we get to see how the show looks on videotape. You wouldn't want to see the whole show revert to video, but it's interesting from a curiosity perspective. Same with using VidFIRE on a movie. In addition, it's possible the increased resolution and subtle three-dimensional look of video could actually bring out detail in a film image that could be of interest to film historians. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- In the light of Peter Jackson's decision to film The Hobbit at 48 fps, it would certainly be interesting to see if a similar process could be used to convert the existing Lord of the Rings movies to 48fps. Of course, this would need to be at film resolution, and therefore much more expensive and time and data consuming. Still, if film can be converted from 2-d to 3-d, there's certainly enough processing power available.Lee M (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree there's no creative reason, but it would make an interesting experiment. Also, remember that videotape is a closer approximation of what we actually see with our eyes. As opposed to film which adds a slickness and sheen, not to mention the subtle flickering of 24 fps. I could see someone running VidFire on, say, Casblanca, simply to see what things might have looked like with our own eyes. It's a curiosity thing. To use a recent example, the 2007 season of Doctor Who was actually videotaped and then transferred to film. The recent DVD release includes footage - deleted scenes and outtakes - that has not gone through the transfer process, and as such we get to see how the show looks on videotape. You wouldn't want to see the whole show revert to video, but it's interesting from a curiosity perspective. Same with using VidFIRE on a movie. In addition, it's possible the increased resolution and subtle three-dimensional look of video could actually bring out detail in a film image that could be of interest to film historians. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
One possible practical use for VidFIRE on film-sourced material would be to create the illusion of having historical figures like Hitler or Laurel & Hardy pop up in the middle of a modern live/pretaped TV broadcast looking like they were in the studio in the present day. Of course this would need colourisation or even where colour footage was avalaible, rescaling the colours to look video-ey (and bear in mind that "looking video-ey" depends on whetehr the viewer is used to NTSC or PAL.) 81.158.134.73 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Modern displays?[edit]
LCD and plasma displays trash interlacing and therefore probably undo any results of the VidFIRE process. What is the attitude of the VidFIRE team towards this development? Do they hope for a future when LCDs and plasmas become capable of interlacing? Anorak2 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deinterlacing ideally turns two fields into two full frames, thus preserving motion smoothness. It just treats the two fields as separate frames and tries to guess the missing lines. No information is lost this way. If your display does not work like this, throw it into the trash can and buy a new one. -- Sloyment (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Adam Adamant VidFIREd?[edit]
I haven't been able to find any documentary proof, but from watching the BBC DVDs of Adam Adamant Lives! it looks very much as if the studio interiors have been VidFIREd. Can anybody confirm or deny? Lee M (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)