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
How does one get/display the color matrix (bt709, etc) of encoded video
(yuv420 colorspace) ?
___
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
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
Am Mo., 29. März 2021 um 12:22 Uhr schrieb jun li :
>
> ffmpeg -f gdigrab -framerate 5 -i desktop output.gif
This command line cannot produce a nice-looking gif,
paletteuse is needed for good pal8 output.
Either record first (not using gif) and convert to gif later
or use a palette of your
to "ffmpeg-20210329-151751.log"
Log level: 48
Command line:
./build-linux/ffmpeg -i
/mnt/lux01-user/UserSpace/Tobias/TestFiles/AVI-HuffYuv/FFVHuff_RGB12bit-720p25__Stereo-PCM24bit__FfMpegTestSrc.avi
-f framemd5 -map 0:v -filter:v "format=gbrp" -t 0.1 -y /dev/stdout -report
f
> On 25 Mar 2021, at 14:40, Bo Berglund wrote:
>
> So this process starts at the time set for the at command and ends after 66
> minutes in this case.
Thanks for the advice Bo.
I think is pretty much what I am doing, so its nice to have some confirmation
that I am not alone in using a timed
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
