Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
21st June 2016, 23:50 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,056
|
Duplicating 249 out of every 1001 fields
Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't 24 fps material be converted to 30,000/1,001 with no speed change whatsoever by duplicating 249 out of every 1001 fields, rather than slowing down by 0.1% and then duping every fourth field?
__________________
I ask unusual questions but always give proper thanks to those who give correct and useful answers. |
22nd June 2016, 01:38 | #2 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
|
I haven't done the math but even if it was correct it'd be a convoluted telecine process that'd be harder to reverse, and I suspect unlike the traditional pulldown pattern where for every five frames there's three "clean" frames and two "dirty" frames, the percentage of dirty frames would be a lot higher. It might be do-able now, but back in the early days of NTSC I doubt the technology existed, and it's probably still not worth it to correct an undetectable speed change, especially as DVD is a previous generation format and newer formats such as Bluray support 24p.
|
22nd June 2016, 02:05 | #3 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,695
|
A 0.1% speed change is completely impossible to detect, so there is no reason to avoid it on the video side. For the audio, modern speed change algorithms can handle even 1-2% speed changes without any discernable flanging or other issues. So for the audio, 0.1% speed change would be completely impossible to detect.
I do both of these things almost every day (add pulldown and adjust audio speed while maintaining the pitch) and have done extensive tests to make sure the results are optimal. Thus, I am quite certain about both of these statements. I'd also point out that standard 3:2 pulldown is very easy to do and generates very predictable, and very uniform results. One thing you always want to avoid when adding pulldown is an irregular pattern. All pulldown accentuates the judder inherent in low framerate video (such as 24 fps film), but when you have an irregular pattern, any occasional extra or missing field will usually stick out like a sore thumb. |
22nd June 2016, 03:20 | #4 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 7,406
|
Quote:
It will change the length slightly, though, if the source is 23.976fps, and require reencoding the audio. |
|
22nd June 2016, 05:19 | #5 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,056
|
Quote:
No.
__________________
I ask unusual questions but always give proper thanks to those who give correct and useful answers. |
|
22nd June 2016, 07:34 | #7 | Link | ||
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 7,406
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by manono; 22nd June 2016 at 07:37. |
||
22nd June 2016, 15:36 | #8 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 308
|
The pattern of combed/clean frames would be different and have a period of 1250 frames, but the overall proportion of combed frames would remain at exactly 40% (i.e. 500 combed frames every 1250).
__________________
Say no to AviSynth 2.5.8 and DirectShowSource! |
22nd June 2016, 16:04 | #9 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
|
The 0.1% speed change was historically motivated.
The issue that caused this change was solved decades ago. I still wonder why people do not abandon it and stay with 30fps, that would work also with old materials. About duplicating frames - this is not a good method.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA) |
22nd June 2016, 17:28 | #10 | Link |
SuperVirus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Antarctic Japan
Posts: 1,351
|
From 4 frames (8 fields) per 1/6 second to 5 frames (10 fields) per 1/6 second:
AA, BB, CC, DD → AA, BB, BC, CD, DD And after 199 sequences of 5 frames, there must be 1 sequence of 4 frames. Well, at least this is the way I would do it... The same reason why ASCII has not been incinerated yet, I presume. |
22nd June 2016, 20:23 | #12 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 7,406
|
Quote:
It's only the relatively few cadence readers that will perform an on-the-fly IVTC so-to-speak and might conceivably trip over that break in the usual cadence. But I don't think they will because it usually takes even a very good DVD player (think Oppo or Denon) a few frames to adjust. |
|
29th June 2016, 20:42 | #13 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,056
|
Quote:
No. Why the hell would I do that? The only solution worth considering.
__________________
I ask unusual questions but always give proper thanks to those who give correct and useful answers. |
|
11th July 2016, 16:34 | #15 | Link |
Formerly davidh*****
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,496
|
Most likely simply slowed down. It's such a a tiny change it doesn't warrant doing anything more complicated. You'd have to resync probably at least once a minute to avoid it drifting noticeably if you weren't going to slow it down.
|
11th July 2016, 18:35 | #16 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,744
|
Ok, but anyway something has to be done ; otherwise, for a 2 hour movie (7200 sec), one would get a 7 second delay at the end, it's quite big.
But I wonder if changing audio's duration so slightly (0,1 %) is that simple ; calculations are maybe more complex than simply doubling or halving it, as if only one frame had to be added every 1000 frames keeping the fluidity (to make a comparison with video). |
12th July 2016, 05:14 | #17 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,695
|
Quote:
The reason it is so simple is that audio is a completely different animal than video when it comes to changing duration. Why? Well, neglecting, for the moment, the sampling issues with digital audio, here is the big difference: film & video are a series of discrete objects; but audio is continuous. Thus, when you change playback speed of video, you end up either with repeated fields and/or frames, or you end up with lots of fields/frames that have been synthesized via blending of adjacent fields/frames, or via motion estimation. With audio, you just compress the waveform a little. Even once you factor in the digital audio sampling issues, changing playback speed is still a trivial exercise because there are 48,000 audio samples per second, as opposed to (at most) 60 "samples" per second with video. Thus, to a first approximation, video is discrete; audio is continuous. |
|
12th July 2016, 08:08 | #18 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,997
|
Quote:
Alternatively one could set the Progressive_Frame flag to TRUE for the "good" frames and to FALSE for the "combed" frames (e.g. HCenc has this option by selecting "auto detect" mode). Even a flag reading DVD player could then theoretically detect the cadence based on the pattern of the Progressive_Frame flag and initiate IVTC without having to analyze the frames. I have however seen a kind of strobing or flicker with adaptively changing Progressive_Frame flags (possibly also caused by the change of the chroma downsampling pattern), but I don't know whether the behavior of my player is the exception or the rule. |
|
13th July 2016, 02:12 | #20 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,695
|
That's why I said "to a first approximation." Actually, digital audio is even closer to being continuous than just a first approximation; it's pretty much the same thing when it comes to this specific task of slightly stretching or compressing the audio. And, the modern algorithms let you keep the pitch, even with +-5% changes, without getting any noticeable flanging or other artifacts.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|