Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> Actually interlaced video kinda makes sense for sports and other live
> video.. you get 50 fields per second, so the movement is smooth..  
720p50 or even 720p60 would give superior motion with in practise better 
vertical resolution than 1080i. It would better to let the video encoder 
lose data in a controlled way than rudely alternating between two 540 
line fields with interlaced video. Also now when carbon footprint 
matters it's insane to double every set top box / HDTV power consumption 
at recipient side for doing magical motion vectors based tricks in 
trying to restore the 1080 line image.
> If you look at interlaced video on a progressive display, then you need to do 
> pretty
> heavy deinterlacing, preferrably using "full motion" methods to get 50 or
> 100 fps output.. takes a lot of CPU. Check
> Where did you get that stream from btw? 
Recorded from Anixe HD yesterday.
> Digita is broadcasting this channel as 720p in DVB-T.. dunno if it's 25 fps 
> or 50 fps.. 
> Hopefully not 25 fps..  
> In what format is that Arte HD? 

At the moment

VIDEO:  [H264]  1280x720  0bpp  50.000 fps    0.0 kbps ( 0.0 kbyte/s)
Opening video decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg's libavcodec codec family
Selected video codec: [ffh264] vfm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg H.264)
Opening audio decoder: [mp3lib] MPEG layer-2, layer-3
AUDIO: 48000 Hz, 2 ch, s16le, 256.0 kbit/16.67% (ratio: 32000->192000)
Selected audio codec: [mp3] afm: mp3lib (mp3lib MPEG layer-2, layer-3)
AO: [oss] 48000Hz 2ch s16le (2 bytes per sample)

But that was an old B/W film so not real HD content.


> -- Pasi
> _______________________________________________
> vdr mailing list

vdr mailing list

Reply via email to