Oh! Returning to my editor from replying to your last message, I suddenly saw
what I'm doing wrong.
The fix: I need to create a 2-frame sliding window that ping-pongs between this:
PTS=0 30030
: :
On 2021-03-30 08:40, Bruce Roberts wrote:
Sorry to keep contradicting myself Mark Filipak, but I'm still wondering if
perhaps there is something wrong in your shuffle/mix/interleave command
because to me, having looked once again, ...
"Looked"? Have you run that filter_complex_script? I don't
Sorry to keep contradicting myself Mark Filipak, but I'm still wondering if
perhaps there is something wrong in your shuffle/mix/interleave command
because to me, having looked once again, the output sequence doesn't appear
to included any weighted mixes of source frames 1 and 2 or 3 and 4, for
> I believe that Nicolas is correct, Phil. I know that 24pps cinema is encoded
>at 24000/1001fps and> therefore running time is extended by about 0.4%.
Lots of cinema stuff is or at least was shot at 23.976, or at least that's the
way the frame rate is often labelled in the cameras.
The reason
Sorry - ignore what I said about the jumping back - I've had another look
and I was wrong about that.
___
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
Hi Mark,
Thank you once again for that detailed explanation of your ingenious
solution! I think I finally understand it now (having spent a few hours
working through it) and I might also understand the leaping back behaviour:
It looks to me like your interleave filter will output the following
Addition: I'm also not receiving Phil's posts (and perhaps others).
On 2021-03-29 18:19, Nicolas George wrote:
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
Are you contending that there is no such thing as video at 24000/1001 fps?
Are you capable of understanding a simple phrase made of less
On 2021-03-29 18:19, Nicolas George wrote:
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
Are you contending that there is no such thing as video at 24000/1001 fps?
Are you capable of understanding a simple phrase made of less ten words?
I believe that Nicolas is correct, Phil. I know that
On 2021-03-29 07:11, Bruce Roberts wrote:
Yes, my apologies - I don't get the luminance bands either when I don't try
to deinterlace the progressive source or if I do deinterlace and
reinterlace interlaced inputs so it seems there was no problem with the
framerate filter after all.
I would
I see we've entered Open Source World here, where everyone starts speaking in
tongues and obfuscating everything because...
...because...
...Um. I guess it's something to do with open source software, because nobody
seems to behave like this in professional-world.
P
On Monday, 29 March
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
> Are you contending that there is no such thing as video at 24000/1001 fps?
Are you capable of understanding a simple phrase made of less ten words?
--
Nicolas George
___
ffmpeg-user mailing list
Are you contending that there is no such thing as video at 24000/1001 fps?
On Monday, 29 March 2021, 22:08:03 BST, Nicolas George
wrote:
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
> What?
I have nothing to add to what I have written. Get a clue.
--
Nicolas George
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
> What?
I have nothing to add to what I have written. Get a clue.
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
On Monday, 29 March 2021, 19:03:43 BST, Nicolas George wrote:
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
>> For the sake of being really rigorously correct, yes, 24.0 or 24000/1001.
> Once again, you are wrong. The 1000/1001 factor is an artifact of color TV.
What?
24-frame material was
Carl Zwanzig (12021-03-29):
> It's an artifact that is still used. Moreover, I've never met an broadcast
But it has nothing to do with movies. Unless movie studios have started
adding this factor on purpose.
> engineer who didn't write 29.97 or 23.97 (or "30fps drop-frame"); I think
> this is
On 3/29/2021 11:03 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
For the sake of being really rigorously correct, yes, 24.0 or 24000/1001.
Once again, you are wrong. The 1000/1001 factor is an artifact of color
TV.
It's an artifact that is still used. Moreover, I've
Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user (12021-03-29):
> For the sake of being really rigorously correct, yes, 24.0 or 24000/1001.
Once again, you are wrong. The 1000/1001 factor is an artifact of color
TV.
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Monday, 29 March 2021, 18:05:00 BST, Carl Zwanzig
wrote:
> Please be careful with the words- "movies" (made for theatrical release) are
> filmed at 24.0 fps.
For the sake of being really rigorously correct, yes, 24.0 or 24000/1001.
Makes very little difference to the current
Am Mo., 29. März 2021 um 18:48 Uhr schrieb Nicolas George :
>
> Carl Eugen Hoyos (12021-03-29):
> > Either you are showing content where the speed (and duration) can be
> > changed but this does not matter - such content is rare but likely
> > exists
>
> You mean that most movies from the NTSC
On 3/29/2021 9:47 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
You mean that most movies from the NTSC area sold as PAL DVD likely
exist? I can confirm, they exist.
Please be careful with the words- "movies" (made for theatrical release) are
filmed at 24.0 fps. And pretty much anything committed to -film- will
Carl Eugen Hoyos (12021-03-29):
> Either you are showing content where the speed (and duration) can be
> changed but this does not matter - such content is rare but likely
> exists
You mean that most movies from the NTSC area sold as PAL DVD likely
exist? I can confirm, they exist.
Regards,
--
Thank you both,
Intuitively, it didn't make sense to me either to change the speed AND
employ motion compensation so it's great to hear that you agree. That was
what I was driving at when I asked if I should treat 24000/1001 differently
to 3/1001 and you've confirmed that I do.
So I think
On 3/29/2021 8:41 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
If you go from 24000/1001 or 24 to 25, it should be acceptable to
change the speed, just force an input framerate of 25 and change
the audio pitch.
Agreed; in PAL broadcast territory that's been the accepted practice for
many (70? 80?) years (and
Am Mo., 29. März 2021 um 10:44 Uhr schrieb Bruce Roberts :
> The background to this is that I have to transcode 23.976fps and 29.97fps
> content for a VOD platform that will only accept 25fps. Their
> documentation says that *prefer *speed change when going from 23.976fps
> or 24fps to 25fps but
Yes, my apologies - I don't get the luminance bands either when I don't try
to deinterlace the progressive source or if I do deinterlace and
reinterlace interlaced inputs so it seems there was no problem with the
framerate filter after all.
I would still be very interested to hear any
... actually, I've just realised that I'm being a doofus. That source is
progressive. Sorry - I'll test again with an interlaced source.
>
___
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To
Hi again Carl,
I've done another test and have uploaded both the input and output files
(which shows the luminance bands problem near the bottom of the output
picture) here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YTUNHm4_oIZFfGge-JqlDT0c71ioLulY?usp=sharing
Here is my command and the console
Hi Mark,
Many thanks for the detailed reply - it does indeed sound like we're
treading parallel paths although, to be quite honest, I don't fully
understand your mix/decimate method. It sounds very promising though so I
very much look forward to seeing your working filter!
Thanks again,
Bruce.
Hi Carl,
Many thanks for your response. The background to this is that I have to
transcode 23.976fps and 29.97fps content for a VOD platform that will only
accept 25fps. Their documentation says that *prefer *speed change when
going from 23.976fps or 24fps to 25fps but that they also require
On 2021-03-26 10:02, Bruce Roberts wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for advice on the best ways to convert 23.976fps and 29.97fps
AVC-I 100Mbps content to 25fps (also interlaced AVC-I 100Mbps).
Hello Bruce,
I think we may be treading parallel paths, you: from the west to east (FILM & NTSC to
Am Fr., 26. März 2021 um 15:32 Uhr schrieb Bruce Roberts :
> I'm looking for advice on the best ways to convert 23.976fps
> and 29.97fps AVC-I 100Mbps content to 25fps
The single most important question is:
What do you mean with "convert"?
Usually, changing the speed of the video is completely
Hello,
I'm looking for advice on the best ways to convert 23.976fps and 29.97fps
AVC-I 100Mbps content to 25fps (also interlaced AVC-I 100Mbps).
So far I have tried the fps filter as follows:
ffmpeg \
-i 23_967.mxf \
-filter_complex "[0:v:0]fps=fps=25[v25fps]" \
-map "[v25fps]" -map a:
32 matches
Mail list logo
