On 09/06/2020 03:31 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Am So., 6. Sept. 2020 um 19:07 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
First, Carl Eugen, could you fix your email client so that it doesn't echo people's email addresses
in the clear?
-snip-
So-called "progressive" video -- I prefer "concurrent" -- is
Am So., 6. Sept. 2020 um 19:07 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
:
> > (Apart from the fact that telecined content does not necessarily
Sorry for the typo here, this should have said "soft telecined".
> > have a framerate of 24000/1001, ...
>
> That's an ad homonym attack.
lol
> I didn't say
On 09/06/2020 12:07 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Am So., 6. Sept. 2020 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
:
[...]
Soft telecined video is actually 23/1.001 frames per second of video
even though the metadata tells the decoder to produce 30/1.001 FPS.
On the FFmpeg user mailing list, "decoder"
Am So., 6. Sept. 2020 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
:
[...]
> Soft telecined video is actually 23/1.001 frames per second of video
> even though the metadata tells the decoder to produce 30/1.001 FPS.
On the FFmpeg user mailing list, "decoder" and "metadata" have
relatively strict meanings.
On 09/06/2020 02:26 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Am So., 6. Sept. 2020 um 06:20 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
:
I would guess that, for an undecoded video that's soft telecined (i.e.
@24/1.001 FPS),
the interlace in the macroblocks is field-based (i.e. the same as if @30/1.001
FPS),
not
Am So., 6. Sept. 2020 um 06:20 Uhr schrieb Mark Filipak
:
> I would guess that, for an undecoded video that's soft telecined (i.e.
> @24/1.001 FPS),
> the interlace in the macroblocks is field-based (i.e. the same as if
> @30/1.001 FPS),
> not frame-based (i.e. the same as if @24 FPS).
This
I can't answer this for myself because I don't have the tools needed to probe into undecoded
macroblocks (at least, I don't think I have the tools).
I would guess that, for an undecoded video that's soft telecined (i.e. @24/1.001 FPS), the interlace
in the macroblocks is field-based (i.e. the
