Frage von Vaderle:
CONTRIBUTIONS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION Hello,
I have a few questions about the interlacing.
I just got links perused by several but things were still unclear.
What is clear, I have summarized below times in the most understandable way, I had a few hours until I get it really did, and no one wants to deny. Some people seem to
been engaged for several years with CG (Title) for sale (eg, Adam Wilt)
1. Is it even possible to get perfect interlacing with still images? that is, with no visible flicker?
(my prov Answer: No, no vertical blur trick or not)
2. If I produce for DVD. Is it then make sense images / Menus / Video
to optimize for Interlancing?
(ie slightly geblured, animation-> fields, etc.)
Or is it better exist i deinterlace material and
then progressively to everything in the DVD paperboard.
The DVD players have so anyway interlacer drin
() because of the movies. But if I have DVD's optimized
are used for interlacing it to the consumer devices (which
cheap interlacer have played) better?
Notes of the DVD player or even that material is already
interlaced and there is literally right way to play?
(probably not.)
Basics of interlacing (=) interlaced ================================================== ====== The human eye is very sensitive to changes in brightness,
less empflndlich on Color and motion.
From a frequency of about 10-12 frames per second, images are perceived as "moving". With about 15-20 frames per second, the motion appears "fluid" and at about 24-25 frames per second, the limit is reached, which our nervous system can distinguish. A further increase would be barely distinguished yet.
QuelleAb einer Frequenz of etwa 50 Hz werden Helligkeitsänderungen als "flimmerfrei" empfunden. Dies ist abhängig
of der Lichtinensität (and anderen Faktoren). (dunkler ist weniger empfindlich als hell).
Einfach gesagt. würde man den Lichtschalter schneller als 50 mal
pro Sekunde einschalten würde man dies nur noch "bedingt" wahrnehmen.
Nun eine Bildwechselzahl of 25 Bilder pro Sekunde ist zwar für die
Bewegungsauflösung ausreichend, das Picture ist damit noch nicht flimmerfrei.
Die Entwickler des Fernsehens standen vor einem grundlegenden Problem: die geplante Übertragungsfrequenz (UHF) kann nur eine gewisse Menge s.Informationen übertragen, die für 25 Bilder pro Sekunde ausreicht - dies würde aber stark flimmern and keinen sonderlichen Sehgenuss bringen.
Source The developers of the film faced a similar problem:
The cameras could record only 24 frames per second.
The solution of the problem was
Fields to be successively transmitted and written to the screen, and although each offset by 1 line. This misalignment is called interlaced or English interlacing.
zum Bild The cinema Fritzen solved the Flimmerproblem with a
Antwort von Axel:
The cinema Fritzen solved the Flimmerproblem with a Umlaufblende .
Pro Picture wurde einfach noch 3 mal "geblitzt". Wodurch eine Wechselfrequenz of 3*24=72 Bilder pro Sekunde erreicht wurden.Konnte vor der Arbeit nur kurz reinsehen. Aber phantastische Arbeit. Wie aber dein eigener vorbildlicher link to Wikipedia zeigt, werden im Movies 24 Bilder
2 times shown = 48 images, not 72!
Antwort von Gast1:
Interlacing is a fertile topic. As you have already been employed for many years to write it, in fact since the invention of the interlaced method.
The special s.der thing is that it does not give a definitive answer but just different optimal points.
For example, the question of the flicker Stillimage. Depends entirely on the Picture, light or dark, still and moving. And the hardware.
Or perhaps the question of interlaced or progressive. Depends on the picture material, the processing software, the DVD player and the television, it's picture tube, 50 or 100 Hertz, LCD or plasma, progressive or not ...
This can also a nice, long thread will be :-)
Antwort von Vaderle:
The cinema Fritzen solved the Flimmerproblem with a Umlaufblende .
Pro Picture wurde einfach noch 3 mal "geblitzt". Wodurch eine Wechselfrequenz of 3*24=72 Bilder pro Sekunde erreicht wurden.
Konnte vor der Arbeit nur kurz reinsehen. Aber phantastische Arbeit. Wie aber dein eigener vorbildlicher link to Wikipedia zeigt, werden im Movies 24 Bilder 2 times shown = 48 images, not 72!
hmm - I think these are for consumer film projectors ...
... flashing should be in the movies tasächlich 3 times ....
... I've read at least here:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
---> Test 2: Sensitivity to darkness
Triple --->...." the refresh rate ". So you see about 72fps in the cinema ...
Antwort von Vaderle:
There are two Varianten....48/72 Hz for Movies
http://www.paradiso-design.net/videostandards_en.html
Antwort von Axel:
There are two Varianten....48/72 Hz for Movies
http://www.paradiso-design.net/videostandards_en.html
and:
hmm - I think these are for consumer film projectors ...
... flashing should be in the movies tasächlich 3 times ....
... I've read at least here:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
---> Test 2: Sensitivity to darkness
Triple --->...." the refresh rate ". So you see about 72fps in the cinema ...
Again and again I try to contributions that have to do with movies, supplemented by practical experience, as this has been a long time now my work. I'm often corrected in details that come from more or less academic publications. For example: Whether it is the exact format for a movie now, "Cinemascope" or "scope" or whether is now actually a 16:9 widescreen gecroptes is (1:1,85), which are actually quite academic issues. In both cases the difference is only in a masked version of the same image. In practice, the crop of a 16:9 DVD is much lower than that of the original film projection.
The wing panel zum Bild is a black plate, which is connected via a shaft with the transport role. The Aperture revolves uniformly around itself 24 times per second, while the transmission ( "Maltheserkreuz") ensures that the teeth with the film perforation pulley bearing stops 24 times per second. While the movie stands quietly in the image window, is covered in this rule only once by one of the wing panel. When onward to the next picture the Aperture but must re-connect. If the frequency increases (by a third wing, for example), reduce the extent of the flickering, but by the shorter light period synonymous, the brightness of the image on the screen. A friendly request from one of my colleagues, perhaps allowing the demonstration of principle through to next of Hand (quasi "single frame" through which one can count the covers).
In a projection prism with electronic motor Dunkelpause there are not any more, as the successive images will be quasi-blended into one another. Despite major advantages (high light output, perfect steadiness), the technology's not enforced for movies. The picture looks like an interlaced picture.
Conclusion: I do not deny that there are 72 Hz projectors. Nobody denies that there are about 50 Hz 100 Hz TVs synonymous. Does anyone that the distinction is worth mentioning? Or someone believes that there were 50 Hz devices "Consumer Goods" and in TV studios, only 100 Hz were used?
