On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> It could be. It depends on one's intentions. Technically, I believe we could
> agree that it is, in fact, a progressive stream distributed in an interlaced
> container. (Which doesn't make much sense, unless you're distributing the
That's probably the sanest way to view it - nice!
> I make them progressive when I send them to the MPEG encoder
With yuvdeinterlace or similar processing? If it's really interlaced
content then it won't work to simply tag it as progressive (but you
knew that ;)).
> Aw, what the heck, we're talking about slightly different things anyway.
I thought it was the same thing.
> You're right, and I believe I'm right too. Agreed?
I think we can agree that it's a matter of getting the flags set in the
header so that decoder knows how to interpret the contents? And the
best way (certainly the easiest ;)) is to let mpeg2enc do it.
I'm wondering if that's what might causing the compression artifacts
that were reported. I've not seen them myself - but then I haven't
been experimenting with progressive data tagged as interlaced ;)
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
