On Saturday 16 November 2002 05:11 pm, Christian Berger wrote: > I opose to the format of time unless there is a clear definition of what > is meant by frames. > Video (especially NTSC) doesn't have the same amount of frames per second. > I see no way of calculating time-differences in a HH:MM:SS:FF format.
Why? if you have integer fps (as in PAL/NTSC/anything) it's trivial. Convert to frame numbers, subtract, convert back to time format. > Besides both formats are hard to parse as well as hard for humans to read. I don't agree. As I said, I have not many different commercial editors, but the three I know all display time in hh:mm:ss.ff, where ff is max 30 for NTSC and max 25 for PAL. Very easy to read for me. Any non-frame based format will severely suffer from rounding errors, like in the suggestion I made: HH:MM:SS.mmm where .mmm are milliseconds. Together with fps of the sample it's possible to calculate the right frame, but not easy in NTSC. Anyway, I want to stress, that merging video with different framerates is not that simple. Already NTSC<->PAL is very difficult when done non-interlaced. It's nothing wrong about keeping this option in mind, but I would not waste too much time and energy on this topic at this point. Cheers, Rolf *************************************************************** Rolf Dubitzky e-mail: Rolf.Dubitzky at Physik.TU-Dresden.de s-mail see http://hep.phy.tu-dresden.de/~dubitzky/ ***************************************************************
