There are lots of people who think that; don't blame yourself. One way to test your "viewer" is to superimpose the two graded images with the Difference composite enabled. Or, for your convenience, I've already done that for you.

Or, you may run your own controlled test environment and post your conclusions, preferably in your own thread.

Welcome to the forums.

These posts are a real library of knowledge for now and for the archive .. I, for one, appreciate them.

You and Eagle Six may be the only ones this winter, I fear. But never fret, one or two new editors always come around, and it's who they eventually become as contributers that keeps me trying.

I tagged you as the Solution, not because you agree with me, nor because I think I am 100% right, but because of your capacity for rational thought and a well-chiseled cortex. Best.

+100

Should not this be sticked to the top?

Thank you, klt. You've been a solid resource on a lot of this legacy stuff.

Great info thank you.

@klt as the recommendation is to keep the stickies to a minimum, I'll add a comment re the "Plea" to this thread. @Musicvid and others, note that he's klt, not kit :).

what if you are upscaling and using the "tween" colors?

what if you are upscaling and using the "tween" colors?

I only “know” of the reverse to “work”, down scaling 4K 420 to 1080 422 and that is not a true 422 either.

wwjd,

Being but a reluctant upscaler, I'm not connecting with your term. Can you show us?

In my online world, I walk a fine line between perpetual OT and obscurity. Penning a sticky wasn't in my thinking, and so I am grateful that this was well-received.

Keep them coming old wise teacher, I yearn for learning. The more wisdom you post the more it will spread.

"Built it and they will come"......maybe!

I'm willing to play devil's advocate for a bit to see if I've missed something that other people are able to quantify and measure. This one gets quoted a lot, despite the huge processing collateral it visits on the unsuspecting and apparent absence of validating data:

When using 8-bit input/output, the 32-bit floating point (video levels) setting can prevent banding from compositing that contains fades, feathered edges, or gradients.

This sounds reasonable on the surface, especially if for 10 bit delivery; however, I've never been able to see or measure a difference using 8 bit source, nor have I ever found substantiated testing to back up that claim; God knows I've tried. For years.

So, the one factor that can not be ruled out are the observer's beliefs and expectations, which are a valid part of an inquiry.

I heartily support one's right to do all his editing in 32 bit float, despite multiple issues, if he believes it to be a worthwhile improvement and is mature enough to absorb the performance hit without claim to entitlements. I personally wish for once to be shown an advantage in cold numbers, rather than being told to accept it at face value.

Not reporting up front the choice to stray from the defaults, while at the same time issuing complaints about slow render times, preview performance, levels, and general indifference to peers is not a reasonable request for support.

Verbose encode logging, pretty please, Magix?

I think one must also state if they work in "32bit float video levels only" or "32bit full"; there is a huge difference, isn't there?

Yes, there would be.

You sure made a good call on that last forum rant, OldSmoke.

I understand and fully accept the premise here for video that's shot with a camera, but what about a final render that's graphics intensive or a mix of camera/graphics? Especially graphic backgrounds that typically show banding? What do you think about those cases? 32 or 8?

Good question. Grade and level for the output, not the source.With mixed source, I stick with 8-bit absolutely, unless rendering for a 10-bit delivery. Graphics are RGB, so I sometimes put them on their own track and conform to the project at the track level.

> 2- bit pixel format is for 10- bit source AND 10- bit output together.

Some people will never agree with the statement.

However, I agree that for people who are just started video/photo editing it might be good advice.

wwjd,

Being but a reluctant upscaler, I'm not connecting with your term. Can you show us?

my tests were years ago when HD was still a thing. upscaling hd to 4K, then pixel peeping revealed the new tween pixels were not simply copies of next door pixels, but a new tween shade. I'd think wider 32bit color possibles would take advantage when generating the tween shades. Alas, thus was long ago and I have no clue where yon picture examples are buried to show ye. :)

Some people will never agree with the statement.

Hadn't planned on everyone agreeing; now that would get boring. Yet in your thread, there appear to be those who do agree.

Marco. wrote on 1/31/2018, 2:46 AM

fifonik These are cases where I would also use float point processing. Sometimes.

One thing to take care of, for 8 bit outputs it would only help if your signals exceed the range from 0-1. But usually I carefully control the levels via scopes and try to avoid leaving the range from 0-1. Then there's no need for float point processing when your project would finally leave as an 8 bit video.
(And just to avoid confusing others: if the output is 8 bit or any other integer processing type, this recover of clipping only works inside this very float point project before rendering.)

Welcome to the discussion. To keep it from derailing, I've once again asked for comparative graphic examples using camera source, which I know can be difficult to construct, but not impossible.

Meanwhile, I'm working on just such a model to validate the narrow gains suggested in the statement that you and I have now both quoted, but not ruled out. Care to join me? No harm in a parallel inquiry.

[HINT /]

wwjd, yes, almost all upscaling use some form of interpolation, which can be clearly seen at the pixel level. To double the dimensions, the number of pixels is multiplied by four.

Unfortunately, bit depth inflation doesn't work the same way in Vegas. Instead of filling in the gaps, it just leaves them empty, no new colors. A gallon of water in a five gallon bucket is still a gallon.

wwjd, yes, almost all upscaling use some form of interpolation, which can be clearly seen at the pixel level. To double the dimensions, the number of pixels is multiplied by four.

Unfortunately, bit depth inflation doesn't work the same way in Vegas. Instead of filling in the gaps, it just leaves them empty, no new colors. A gallon of water in a five gallon bucket is still a gallon.

I've only ever used 8-bit projects, and 8-bit sources, but could you explain what the graphic here represents or how it was generated?  Unless I'm misunderstanding, it looks like it DOES show intermediate pixels.  Most of the gaps don't go all the way to the floor, indicating that at least some pixels are being generated and tabulated in the gap values.  (But frankly, there's a real good chance that I just don't understand this yet...)