On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Roman Shaposhnick wrote:
> 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
Well, bringing up "film" and "3:2" pulldown was perhaps not the
best way ;)
Broadcast TV, etc instead of "film" would have been a better example
since there's never any doubt about TV being interlaced ;)
> know where you footage came from.
Yes and it's also (as I found out recently - just the other evening)
important to know the source of the footage for field dominance - was
something top or bottom field first.
> I believe that the inability of most tools to work with individual fields
> is partially to blame here.
Well, the YUV4MPEG2 *API* can handle "mixed" interlacing. None of the
tools, especially the encoder, know how to take advantage of that
though - there were plans to do that but they've gone into
hibernation.
Eventually the plan was to be able to do exactly what's being discussed
recently - mix progressive and interlaced content in a single encoding
session. The encoder would just flip on/off the necessary flag(s) and
the decoders would simply follow the directions given in the stream.
Cheers,
Steven Schultz
-------------------------------------------------------
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
