On Thursday 28 October 2004 20:21, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> > 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 ;)).
It is progressive content that happen to look like it's interlaced.
Draw-and-tell time!
My cable delivers film converted to TV, in this fashion:
[ t b ][ t b ][ t b ][ t b ]
That is, one frame containing two fields, each containing one half of a
progressive frame. Progressive material in an interlaced container. All is
good and well.
However, as I recently mentioned, my drivers are extremely experimental, and
grab the stream like this:
[ t{b ][ t}{b ][ t}{b ][ t}b ]
leaving me with a file containing something that look like this:
[ b t ][ b t ][ b t ]
Niiiice. Temporal displacement and field reversal in one big, happy gooey
mess. I could very well discard every other field and feed this to the
encoder, or apply heavy-duty deinterlacing sledge hammers and pretend that
this is the correct thing to do (which does seem to be the most common
approach when you search the net), but instead I pipe the video through
yuvcorrect and get the nice looking progressive [ t b ] frames I started with
out of it. _Then_ I feed it to the encoder.
/Sam
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idU88&alloc_id065&op=click
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
