Frage von EyTschej:
What struck me was just that the movements look like something in my last video for "slapstick" speed, say, a little faster than in reality. Since I have the same views, the views uncompressed AVI version and was confirmed in my suspicions.
To encode I used the latest xvid codec (1.1), quality-based 100%, and a filter for deinterlacing (duplicate field 1). Program was used VirtualDub.
The frame rate is unchanged 25 - at least, appears to me that way. At what point could now be wrong?
EDIT: Using AVIcodec struck me as a difference that the uncompressed version is a bit rate of 20,500 kbps, which has the xvid version only 17,000 Kbps. Other differences I could not find so far ...
Antwort von Markus:
Is this a new trick to video compression? Solution so far: Smaller Picture = lower data rate. Less quality = lower data rate. Reduced framerate = lower data rate.
New: Faster run shorter = Video = smaller file size. ;-)
BTW: The difference between an uncompressed AVI and a XviD compression should be significantly larger than that between 20,500 and 17,000 Kbps Kbps!
Antwort von EyTschej:
Well, I say it this way: The trigger in the raw AVI file is, according to Media Player 720x540, 720x576, according AVIcodec (synonymous what should be correct, since it is NTSC DV and I have it with this setting synonymous transferred to the Calculator) . The following two xvid1.1 versions I created it:
720xschlag-me-dead: 716 MB
360xschlag-me-dead: 182 MB
I have, as mentioned above, both encoded with xvid 1.1 on quality-based 100%. Raw file is 1.4 GB, incidentally. So the 720 version has been gerademal xvid-half, which really is not that great. But my goodness: xvid xvid is ...
But that's not all over s.dem problem that I have myself a point at 12 seconds in the raw video and noticed that is achieved in the "xvidierten" video even at 11 seconds. The sound SEEMS still run synchronously with the way the pictures.
My suspicion is yes, that this is either an Macke of xvdi 1.1 codec (probably less) or is caused by the shape of the deinterlacing (Duplicate Field 1 with Virtual Dub). Any part of the encoding process must have driven fast and loose with the frames, hmmm ...
EDIT: I have just rumgetestet something and apparently it was just an optical illusion. However, I'm leaving the previous text views are so because s.der original theme changes only slightly: the movements contribute something "Slapstick", which is slightly faster than in reality. The time period is contrary to my initial, inaccurate "Pi-mal-thumb test" unchanged. The optical illusion occurs both with, as synonymous with no deinterlacing. I once synonymous with divx encoded, but since the result was the same. Perhaps the generally s.den only 25 frames is that the motion in part, come across as "slapstick"??
And because the topic in Marcus's posting has already been addressed: the compression rate 720xschlag-me is dead-360s over version anyway disproportionately worse. Because I for versions only the format, but last s.Codec s.sich nothing, gives me the synonymous to a puzzle. Or he is already just by the larger format?
Antwort von ameisen:
perhaps that is original in 25fps (pal) and the xvid 29fps (NTSC).
