@rean I don't expect denoise/sharpen to improve the content, there isn't much noise left. My query was more about chroma reconstruction, so I could get some grading latitude. Can VA help? Bear in mind it originated in DV and has mutated greatly (always to a better codec though). I'll send you PM with a link on Vimeo. Thank you.

@rean I'm having déjà vu. This is just like windmotion. A lot of technical small details, bad example pictures, you change settings to examples on the fly "oh wait.. ignore that, these settings are better", bad marketing. You are not able to sell your product.

@rheinpirat To sell the product, you need to compare it to competitors.

@tonalt

• A lot of technical small details - what details annoy you? Сolleagues who are potential buyers, understand me and understand, in what area I and my product will be useful them.
• bad example pictures - what example picture is bad? what significative is bad?
• you change settings to examples on the fly "oh wait.. ignore that, these settings are better" - give a prove.
• bad marketing - what you mean?
• You are not able to sell your product - what is your commercial interest to someone else's product?
• To sell the product, you need to compare it to competitors. - Why I need it? Also give me a competitor and area where I able to create a comparison. And, please point me the area on the competitor web site about comparison.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev The complexity of creating a tool comparable in performance you mean, unnecessarily large. Did you know there are thousands of assembler code inside it and tens of thousands of lines of c++ code is used currently. 23 megabytes of pure mathematics archived source code in 7-zip with most ratio compression setting per each component. Hundreds of people worked on this code for several years, including three years of my work including prototyping, testing, finding best ways, research in real world cameras.

Who able to create a similar tool you suggest?

Are you capable of such an adventure, even if your life was provided to old age and it would not matter whether the return you investment? We can use it now these days. It is a reality, not a fantasy or an idea. And it allows make me something that is not possible before.

If advisers can do this way, then do it! Personally, I spent three years of work to make a working product and it really works. It remains the most difficult to explain to people that I have lived these three years not in vain.

PS. chroma upsampling example is planned. A competitor code on doom9 works with 0.1 fps for hd. My code works in realtime in 4K with the same quality.

I physically don't have neither time nor resources to show all tasty things of the program. Instead of investing for twenty years in programming of the program clone (what is necessary to users who like to move a slider), I will spend this time for the proof that nothing more the best for the requested money and simply doesn't exist in the world.

I know what people want. I don't know why you think I have resources to create this?

@Vitaliy_Kiselev probably because you think I sell "good AviSynth scripts". Or probably you think I sell chroma upsampling tool (because some user before in 2013 opened a discussion where he write that my software is “a chroma upsampling tool”).

These things are not complete true. I sell a video quality that is not possible to get using existing tools. I created a specialized tool that can create this quality. And yes, I use good AviSynth scripts as one of software components. And yes, I can do good upsample, denoise and tons of another useful things. There are many hidden things those make the result be possible. All these things are now placed in one specialized tool - VA.

Probably you asked to create a separate plugin from one of VA feature set? For example a chroma upsample plugin for your NLE?

Probably you asked to create a separate plugin for one of VA feature set? For example a chroma upsample plugin for your NLE?

I did not ask anything.

Just told that commercially it is very hard to sell tool that is AviSynth scripts even if some functions in them are custom compiled code.

I am sure you are good at this things, yet users buy easy to use and learn tool, and this means either easy to install plugin or standalone tool.

OK, I am the person who provided the night road footage. I have just spent quite a while playing with Resolve and the Ignite denoising plug in. I was aiming for a similar quality. I have to admit I did not come even near. I could get rid of the noise, but I lost way too much detail and no amount of sharpening and adding frames got me anywhere near the level of detail that @rean has recovered. I have to admit that my mind is kind of blow, even sharpening without denoising first did not get anywhere near the demo video. Impressive!

@Psyco "There is no heavy bluring in the Neat Video example" - probably you do not see it or not pay attention. Every examples you pointed have heavy detail degradation. It is because NeatVideo used FFT-based denoise. Probably latest versions are better, but these examples you provided are bad. I see these examples were created many years ago.

"Your quality-night A/B example is bullshit (sorry)." Another users use another word: impressive and they explain their point of view. You're especially emotionally hurt the person and apologize. You want me to give in the face? Let's meet and have a battle. You don't want it? Then don't hurt other people and stick to a rational approach.

"Why do you add a grade in Resolve at the end when you want to show what YOUR software can do?" - Really? I do not think so. There are 2 results there: a) a software result and b) a DaVinci result. I have full rights to place to Examples & Portfolio area my examples and my portfolio. Software can do nothing without a user who used software. You will get very different results than my results. Because we are different. We use different point of view and different style.

"And why are there big black rings arround every lightsource in the picture?" - It is sharping, and the core software feature. Another software cannot do similar sharping, because I specially created this feature. This way has pluses and minuses.

"Also big black borders arround the handrail - thats just heavy sharpening," - these borders are exists in the source. It is a camera sharping settings. Did you compared it? Do you know how sharping works?

"even totally masking the antialasing your software might have done." - I do not understand what you mean.

"Also you claim your software is better than anything else on the market..." - Prove it. Point me a place where I wrote it.

"I can't really see that from your examples or comments." - probably, because you live in the fantasy world. Your idea about myself was wrong.

I see you do not like sharping the software can do and then you called all work as "bullshit" and to find fault with the rest of the. I do not understand people like you.

@rean "I do not understand people like you." - Is it possible that your English is not so good and thats why all this missunderstanding happens? I will try to make my points a bit clearer:

"Your quality-night A/B example is bullshit (sorry)." -> The example is not good. I'm not talking about the software, just the example (pictures). I'm not the first one here to tell you this.

If you want to show how good your software is, you don't add another software on top. Why did you grade the example in Resolve? What has Resolve to do with your program? It adds confusion.

"It is sharping, and the core software feature." - There is a big difference between video restoration and sharpening. You say your software can restore bad video, but why is sharpening the core feature in this process? This kind of sharpening takes information away and makes postprocessing (VFX, grading,...) more complicated.

"these borders are exists in the source. It is a camera sharping settings. Did you compared it?" - Yes, I did. The black boarders in the source are much smaller.

"even totally masking the antialasing your software might have done." -> Your software can do antialasing, correct? It did work on the handrail, correct? But the sharpening/black boarders are so strong, that I can't see if your antialasing is good.

"Prove it. Point me a place where I wrote it." -> "I sell a video quality that is not possible to get using existing tools."

"I see you do not like sharping the software can do..." - Sorry, but those big black rings arround the background light sources are really bad.

Wow this thread got hostile fast. Calm down, people.

@rean I also disagree that neat video examples blur all details and lose resolution. The lack of detail you are perceiving in the after examples are the lack of grain. Once grain is added back, there is just as much, if not more, perceived detail after neat video is applied. The temporal noise reduction used helps to bring back details so you might argue there is slightly more detail after neat video.