2019-02-03 11:58 GMT+01:00, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@gmx.de>: > > Am 01.02.19 um 20:00 schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos: >>> But for the rest of the video, I'm wondering that I nowhere notice such >>> dropouts. IIRC I read, that the film was produced with a budget of >>> 20.000 DM, which IMHO is not enough for a 76 min. celluloid film. >>> >>> Additionally in the turning camera scene from 2:34 I see comb >>> artifacts, which are typical for interlaced video recordings (see >>> attached extractions).
They do not look like comb artefacts as caused by interlaced recording to me. >> Definitely not interlaced (could be de-interlaced, but this doesn't >> make much difference because of the other visual issues). > > Would you agree, that the original master recording probably > was an analogue interlaced video tape, maybe early > Betacam or high quality VHS camera Wikipedia claims that there was neither Betacam nor VHS-C in 1982 (I meant "Camcorder" when I wrote "Digital video" which of course didn't exist), IMDB claims the movie was released in January 1983. But I agree that the lack of celluloid artefacts does point to television cameras and recording technology. (Although I wonder a little if these really were cheaper than a film camera plus film.) Wikipedia also claims that Betacam supported progressive recording. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".