On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:52:23AM -0500, Neil Radisch wrote: > > > > So with telecine you get: > > 1T 1B 1T 2B 2T 3B ... > > > > and what mplayer does is: > > 1 2 3 ... > > > > So you get 23.976 frames per second but it takes just as long as the 59.94 > > fields in the telecine case. > > > > That doesn't sound right. Telecine should generate > 1T/1B > 2T/2B > 2T/3B > 3T/4B > 4T/4B > > If mplayer is merely delaying frames then the 2T/3B and 3T/4B constructs > would never occur.
They don't need to happen on a progressive display? > This could be happening, except the film material looks > awfully clean > on my TV for this to be the case. > > Also, mplayer says that "inverse telecine" is active. Why would that be? > > ----- > demux_mpg: 3:2 TELECINE detected, enabling inverse telecine fx. FPS changed > to 23.976! > ------ > > If the material is really 23.976, then it should be doing telecine, not > inverse-telecine. > But perhaps again this is just a text error. Really it's not telecine or inverce telecine. It's simply not doing the telecine at all. Which is why it's sort of inverece telecine. At least that's how I think it works but don't count on it :) Mplayer does have a real inverce telecine filter but that is only required when the material is already telecined. > Yeah me to. I don't suppose there's someone out there who actually knows > what > mplayer is doing internally in this case that we could bring into the > conversation? Probably asking on mplayer (-users ?) list could help. Either that or start reading the source.... :) -- Ville Syrj�l� [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-users" as subject.
