Message |
|
Author |
by Laxative Effect » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:36 pm
01/06/2010
M 1920x1080 155
M 1920x1080 223
M 1920x1080 187
|
|
Laxative Effect
Larry Burns
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:46 pm Posts: 3645 Karma: 181.37 (6611 thanks) Location: Melbourne
|
Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:36 pm |
|
|
by Laxative Effect » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:46 pm
24/05/2010
Higher quality images of a previous post.
M 1920x1080 164
M 1920x1080 195
|
|
Laxative Effect
Larry Burns
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:46 pm Posts: 3645 Karma: 181.37 (6611 thanks) Location: Melbourne
|
Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:46 pm |
|
|
by facerider990 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:41 am
Great caps
|
|
facerider990
Carl Carlson
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 3:07 pm Posts: 536 Karma: 29.10 (156 thanks)
|
Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:41 am |
|
|
by Xfactor » Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:08 pm
......... Oh and i'll add: Laxative Effect wrote: Cheers djmenow and Takk, nice to meet you two. Oh btw Takk, thans for all you previous posts. Its good to see someone else providing some decent resolutions images. 1920 x 1080 rules lol . I'd go higher myself, but my caps come out all blurry at that resolution . I've capped at 1440 x 810 in the past, but i'm quite comfortable with 1024 x 576
M 1360x1496 229
M 1024x576 258
M 1024x576 418
|
1
|
Xfactor
Ned Flanders
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 3:13 pm Posts: 2149 Karma: 58.40 (1255 thanks) Location: Australia
|
Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:08 pm |
|
|
by Laxative Effect » Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:14 pm
S'all good Xfactor, i prefer that than no caps at all.
|
|
Laxative Effect
Larry Burns
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:46 pm Posts: 3645 Karma: 181.37 (6611 thanks) Location: Melbourne
|
Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:14 pm |
|
|
by Takk » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:28 pm
Xfactor wrote: ......... Oh and i'll add: Laxative Effect wrote: Cheers djmenow and Takk, nice to meet you two. Oh btw Takk, thans for all you previous posts. Its good to see someone else providing some decent resolutions images. 1920 x 1080 rules lol . I'd go higher myself, but my caps come out all blurry at that resolution . I've capped at 1440 x 810 in the past, but i'm quite comfortable with 1024 x 576 1024x576 works for me, Xfactor. Like you, I used to downsize my caps to improve picture quality as I prefer the way they look, however most guys on here prefer the larger sizes it seems. A few other cappers who used to post the 1080 sized caps have dropped off so for the purposes of posting on here, I just blow them up to 1920x1080 and try and get them looking the best I can. If you post the smaller sizes then we can has the best of both worlds.
|
|
Takk
Ned Flanders
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:38 am Posts: 2230 Karma: 69.78 (1556 thanks)
|
Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:28 pm |
|
|
by modecko » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:51 pm
Keeping off topic isn't the trick to cap and post as close as possible to the native resolution?
If the native show is true HD from Ch9 for example then post a cap at 1080 but if its from say ABC2 then do it at 720 etc. If there is a need to up or down scale then do it to nearest native resolution. Upscaling 576 to 1080 really doesn't work all that well but an 810 upscale mightn't be as bad.
Any scaling/resizing is going to cause loss of quality, even downsizing, though it is preferable to upsizing. When you downsize you inevitably throw away pixels. If you can a hint is to use the Lancos filter for downsizing and Mitchell for upsizing.
Oh and for those lucky enough to get it there is very little that beats Genuine Fractals for changing image size, and it does batch as well. It uses vector maths to do the resizing rather than the normal bitmap pixel interpolation.
|
|
modecko
Judge Roy Snyder
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:42 pm Posts: 910 Karma: 99.56 (906 thanks) Location: South Coast NSW
|
Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:51 pm |
|
|
by Laxative Effect » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:29 am
Well i don't know about others but when i click capture it automatically captures at 1920 x 1080
|
|
Laxative Effect
Larry Burns
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:46 pm Posts: 3645 Karma: 181.37 (6611 thanks) Location: Melbourne
|
Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:29 am |
|
|
by atefooterz » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:28 am
Welcome Laxative effect . * Do you cap in the prgram your capture with or another? These are from the stream 1st 3 are last Sat & currently broadcast @ 1080 x 1440 & resized to 1080 x1920.. the last one is from 3 may 2009 when they used to broadcast @ 1080 x1920 ( in Sydney ) and nothing done to it. The large caps look ok on my LCD 1680 x1050 but awesome on the old 1024 x 768 CRT as letterbox full screen. I have heard that some systems you set the capture image parameters = everything comes out that size. LupusRex has that so SD ch ten stuff is upscaled but quite nicely considering the huge increase. NOTE: Chit chat is allowed, with posting a penalty pic or 2 haha
M 1920x1080 404
M 1920x1080 465
M 1920x1088 321
|
|
atefooterz
Santa's Little Helper
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:34 pm Posts: 14025 Karma: 190.32 (26693 thanks) Location: #nowhereman
|
Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:28 am |
|
|
by modecko » Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:02 am
Yeah atez, as long as we post the pics to back up the info.
Both capped at native resolution. Any blurring or artefacts will be due to reception or JPG conversion (I frame cap in TIFF).
Please note the under glass top action in the second cap.
M 1280x720 952
M 1920x1080 1027
|
2
|
modecko
Judge Roy Snyder
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:42 pm Posts: 910 Karma: 99.56 (906 thanks) Location: South Coast NSW
|
Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:02 am |
|
|