On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:31:12PM -0700, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Roman Shaposhnick wrote: > > > Let's start from the very beginning -- you have your celluloid film, > > that runs at 24fps, you scan it and you want to encode result onto > > the NTSC DVD where the frame rate is 30fps (or 30000/1001). Obviously > > Actually they run the film projector .1% slow to get 24000/1001 and > then run a 3:2 pulldown on that to get 30000/1001. At least that's > how I've had it explained to me.
It's even worse. I'm told there's footage out there with fps being 24000/1001. A monster from a mad scientist's lab, indeed :-) > > you start with *progressive* material, after all there's nothing > > more progressive than a strip of film. However, when you start > > putting it on DVD you have the following 3 choices: > > Thanks for chiming in. > > Hmmm, you interested in becoming a mjpegtools developer? We could > use some new ideas/code, etc :-) Sure, once I'm done with polishing DV codec. I'd be delighted. > But I think you are conflating 3:2 pulldown and interlacing. They're > not necessarily _both_ needed. The repeat first field, etc is > needed so that a progressive scan DVD player (coupled to a progressive > scan TV set of course) can reconstruct the progressive frames I agree. But my point was to just draw attention to the fact that the line between progressive and interlaced is blurred. Especially when you don't know where you footage came from. I believe that the inability of most tools to work with individual fields is partially to blame here. Thanks, Roman. ------------------------------------------------------- This Newsletter Sponsored by: Macrovision For reliable Linux application installations, use the industry's leading setup authoring tool, InstallShield X. Learn more and evaluate today. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSI/go/ins0030000001msi/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
