|
|
Posted by Veggie Dave on 11/14/06 15:47
In article <Vea6h.51644$Do4.19268@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Jukka Aho
<jukka.aho@iki.fi> writes
>But I'm arguing that...
I think we're discussing rather than arguing. ;)
>4) that if frames _are_ dropped in the 25 fps -> 23.976 (24*1000/1001)
>fps conversion, well, then I'm not sure what is the point of this
>exercise, since dropping frames introduces motion judder, and
You have your 25fps PAL footage that you can either convert to 23.976fps
or 29.97fps. So, your software either has to create just under 5
artificial frames every second or remove just over one frame every
second.
Now, while you're absolutely right that converting to 23.976 means
converting an interlaced image to a progressive image, and that means
losing quality, the loss of quality on a DVD isn't that bad (considering
the quality difference between PAL and NTSC), but also there are
dramatically fewer problems created compared to artificially generating
the extra frames required for 29.97fps, especially when high speed
images are involved.
It's not just how much sharpness is lost due to the interpolated frames,
but also motion errors in the interpolated frames.
I have spent some time doing practical experiments with the technique so
I can offer it as an alternative to my clients (because they don't want
to spend the money on, or don't have the budget to, do it properly) and
it does create less problems and artefacts than 25fps to 29.97fps. And
in the context of this thread would have been a potential solution.
--
Veggie Dave
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|