>for the not interlaced video:
>Framerate: Order: AVR Bitr. MAX Bitr:
>30000:1001 D F S 2593200 4576400
>30000:1001 F D S 2611000 4608400
>24000:1001 D F S 2304400 4138000
>24000:1001 F D S 2305200 4143600
>24:1 D F S 2309200 4348000
>24:1 F D S 2309600 4349200
>orig PAL D 3142800 5401600
>The interlaced stream looked not that good at the 30000:1001 FPS. If
>something is moving up the picture it lookes like if you have the wrong
>interlacing: moving: up, down, up, up up, up, down, up .....
>The 24FPS videos did not have that problem (obvious). There I thought
>sometimes to see it speed up a little bit.
That's what I was afraid of: suppose you have four fields where something
is moving, and its position is 1, 2, 3, 4. If you double the first whole
frame, you'll get the sequence 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4 --- e.g. up, up, down,
up, up, up... (or, left, left, right, left, left, left...)
>What also hit me a little ist that the PAL needs much more bandwith than
>NTSC. I know that the PAL picture has a larger frame area but I thought
>the higher frame rate would compensate that.
Actually, the numbers make sense: the framerate conversion is by duplicating
frames. The ratio of bitrates from your tests is:
NTSC(converted) 2600000 480
--------------- = --------- = approx ----- !
PAL 3100000 576
In other words, MPEG-2 really works. The reduction in bitrate is due to the
downscaling of the non-duplicated frames. MPEG's interframe compression is
completely compressing the duplicate frames.
-matt m.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies!
Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships.
Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more.
www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
