On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 11:02, Adrian Cox wrote: > On 15 May 2002 00:05:59 +0200 > Michel D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 22:04, Rogério Brito wrote: > > > On May 12 2002, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, the actual movies shouldn't be interlaced. > > > > > > Well, I read that also in Ben's reply and got surprised, since > > > without exception all DVDs that I have seen to this day are > > > interlaced. > > > > Sounds like bad encodings. The original movies as shown in theaters > > obviously > > aren't interlaced so if a DVD is that's purely artificial. > > Are you sure about this? I thought most DVDs carried either interlaced > NTSC or interlaced PAL. In the NTSC case the movie is converted to > 30fps interlaced by a 3:2 pulldown (3 fields from one frame, 2 fields > from the next). In the PAL case each frame is split into two fields, > which speeds the film up slightly. Adjusting the pitch of the audio is > optional in this case. I believe that in both cases this is normally > done when mastering the DVD, to allow for manual tweaking of the > process.
You're right, forgot about this, but in the PAL case the two fields are basically the same as one frame, right? Maybe that's why I haven't noticed any interlacing yet. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
