It's on 100fps.com, but right now:
Quote:
Sample it's 5MB, and I think it is more quality than compression based, but I don't have abillity to provide mirror of this. Maybe I could try by Kast, but I'll need explanation on brodcasting. |
First if we see that whole thing "on topic" we can assume that "he" really deals with a 23.976 progressive Stream, framebased and therefore to be encoded as Progressive with ZigZag scanned DCT 8x8 Matrix.
And as this thread here changed to the "interlaced" Divx/XVID 4:2:0-YV12 subject, I fished something out of the www and other forums. ;-) If you want to see an interlaced 4:2:0 YV12 XVID (also Divx would behave the same) without postprocessing you don't need to get that one at 100fps.com, you can see my two pics in this thread above where the upscaling of the image by 3times gives you a good comparison. Gentlemen, the problem in here's not Divx or XVID in general, the Problem is interlaced 4:2:0 and therefore interlaced YV12 (YV12 4:2:0 is mpeg4 standard). And thats also an issue if capturing interlaced sources using mpeg2! Means at NTSC telecined captures and also in case of PAL if Hollywood movie broadcastings have been treated by a pal speedup (23.976 to 25.000 + adding of that PAL Country audio) AND phase shift (appears as interlacing "look") Watch this: http://www.mir.com/DMG/chroma.html Means: YUY2 = half horizontal but full vertical color resolution YV12 = half horizontal AND half vertical color resolution (and as Interlaced needs full heigth to be fieldbased ... therefore comes the chroma bug in case of interlaced) Also in that Link you can see WHY mpeg1 can't be encoded as interlaced! As Chroma Samples are centered BETWEEN lumasamples which makes interlacing impossible even at full height. And here an explanation of LigH at doom9/Gleitz.de translated by Googles language tools: Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Avisource("yourXVID.avi")
AssumeTFF() /AssumeBFF() Separatefields() I tried both scripts on my Xvid video. Both looks the same to me when viewed on WMP. Both scripts crunched my 4:3 video into 16:9. I'm curious why boths scripts looks identical. I don't see any jerkiness anywhere. |
Quote:
I noticed there is less flicker when played on my PS2. During panning scenes, jerkiness not as visible (it looks like the jerks occur at a faster rate) but still not as smooth as the source. |
Quote:
|
Its not jerky on both methods (BFF/TFF) cause you assume right now :arrow: its Framebased and NOT Fieldbased ;-)
As thats a capture I assumed right, that it has been Inverse-Telecined (IVTC=restored 29.97 phaseshifted to 23.976 PROGRESSIVE) |
OK. TMPGEnc is wrong and I'll stop using it. I'll assume all 23.976 fps Xvid/Divx are Progressive.
|
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.