Frage von error:
Hello,
I just read on 100fps.com that it has a very low quality loss, but the easiest method is hinzubekommen a deinterlace, when I resize to 384x288 of 720x576.
1.frage: 384 Non well, it's half of the 720, but ok then?
2.frage: I have a quali-loss resolution in direction? because interlaced are only 2 half pictures in one. So nothing would make, right?
3. ask the whole DVD is compatible? I will have no fact VCD.
Antwort von Markus:
Hello,
for whatever reason you want to deinterlace the video? Should it be played only s.Computer? But why then create an extra DVD-Video?
->
Deinterlacing - yes or no? If you are the Resolutionverringerst (720 -> 384) is, then, logically, the Resolutionschlechter. ;-) The 384 is because a video image is not s.Computer leads to the 4:3-format, but at a 5:4 ratio. To compensate, you have the 720 pixels to 768 stretch. Half of 768 is in turn 384th
-> Link you'll find in the above post
Antwort von error:
mhh, I want the synonymous s.end a DVD player to play.
And I'm back s.so point one, where I finally just thought a little bit to understand, and again everything was upset ^ ^
If I have a mpeg2 interlaced, and the burn as dvd-video, then I see the s.fernseher not?
And why have all the programs at 720x576? yes, I find it not okay ... I can not set the 704 or 768 ...
Antwort von Markus:
The local television standard PAL has been defined and each interlaced PAL-imaging device (eg DVD player, television, camcorder, VCR ,...) is working with interlaced video. Only the computer, there is thus sometimes difficult.
If your future output device, ie a television, then you should not deinterlace the video.
And why have all the programs at 720x576? 720 × 576 pixels correspond to the specifications of Digital Video (PAL). Each Purchase DVD delivers images with 720 × 576 pixels.
Antwort von error:
have not deinterlaced and on the TV shrugs it all: (I'm pretty sad about this result ...
Antwort von mdb:
have not deinterlaced and on TV all the twitches Then perhaps the field order got confused
Antwort von Stefan:
1 / Yes. The 384 automatically entail a staggering of eggheads. 720x576 is the format with non-square pixels. If one or exactly halved Bldgrösse on the PC (the square pixel is considered), we see eggheads.
2 / Yes. You "schmeisst 3 / 4 of your Picture and tug off the rest a bit further apart." What do you expect?
3 / No. DVD does not allow 384x288 format.
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.4
Good luck
The fat Stefan
Antwort von photopilote:
principle exist sd dv clips from 720x576 pixels, with the aspect ratio of pixels is 1: 1.067.
Most video codecs are now based on pixeling but the aspect ratio of 1: 1 (clearly show, for the pixel of your monitors are just square) in contrast to tv.
Consequently: we exported dv material cut from the program must take care to export settings in a pixel aspect ratio of 1: 1 (select square pixel) and to change the frameaulösung to 768: 576 too. (720 x 1,067 = 768, so he no image distortion, no scaling or other bildverschlechternde processes but a simple mathematical zero sum game)
Now for deinterlacing (all others on 768x576 square pixel based): it's about a film where the via dsl / progressive download will be distributed via the internet or to run in embedded Playerz; rat following: throw every other field, a frame (there is interlac'tem material from two fields each of which has 384x576 pixels, which are displayed on the tv turn on even or odd row, and only in the head ensteht from the illusion of an image that metaphorically 768x576 pixels, a frame corresponds to the path) and the resulting resized then frames of 384x576 pixels to 384x288 px.
ACHUNG resize: not irgenwie it this way:
VDub / filters:
1. deinterlace: option: discard every second field
2. resize: horizontal resolution using bicubic resize precise halving 1.0
The disadvantages of this procedure, the deinterlace 'stair training' the s.diagonal extending edges entseht is there a line missing. In reality, this is hardly to be seen if the file with more than 100% size is played. The advantages of this procedure, however far the most important: no blinding unschärfen / deinterlace, blur or other artifacts ...; simple and independent of the arte of recordings performed (fast movements or talking heads: doesn't matter);
Who wants to deinterlace vollaugelöste files may be avisynth scripts of scharfis_brain beg in the German doom - this is science .... ne
mfg
photo pilote
Antwort von fg:
Have I skipped when it? You know, one that equalizes large 720x576 DV - video is not 768x576 but 788x576. A large 704x576 video shows a corrected contrast 768x576.
mvbob () of scharfis_brain is one possibility among avisynth deinterlace to (it is indeed synonymous a little slow). An alternative that is increasingly "established as" standard, Tdeint ().
Antwort von Stefan:
> Have I skipped when it?
Probably not. But I need to do some curriculum, because I was confused at your question.
http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Basics/Pixelverhaeltnisse-and-woher-sie-kommen.html on the topic is non-square / square interesting and well explained.
Short and concise - you're right, but in practice you have to judge according to his editing program. Synonymous, and therefore I have my "wisdom" from the practice.
Adobe Premiere creates man (like me) s.besten with the pair of 720x576 and 768x576, because then things imported auto scaled transformed () function.
) Without Auto Import or more operating programs (see example in Vegas Video Slashcam items you should use your own values.
CU
The fat Stefan
Antwort von Archimedes:
The previous entry way, was a guest of me. I have forgotten to notify me in advance. ;-)
That may look different depending on the editing system, may well be. I note only time and again that this matter again be unclear. If you are not sure, you can easily test for themselves the synonymous. I for example, on a dartboard in 4:3 full screen again - and even filmed in the 16:9 mode. In 4:3-mode, were the inner circle of the dartboard in a steady equalization of 788x576. In 16:9 mode, this was at a 1050x576 equalization of the case.
704x576 (4:3) -> 768x576
720x576 (4:3) -> 788x576
704x576 (16:9) -> 1024x576
720x576 (16:9) -> 1050x576
I must admit I have a long synonymous wrong. I have, for example, the export of individual frames from MediaStudio Pro 4:3-frames (720x576) is always scaled to 768x576, in the belief that I would have equalized the right.
Antwort von Markus:
In 4:3-mode, were the inner circle of the dartboard in a steady equalization of 788x576. If we count time by:
768:576 = 4:3 exactly
788:576 = ca 4,1:3
S.einen this discussion reminds me of my clients: the measure actually circles on his television to consumer and expects me if a circle is wider than 1 mm high - not what one sees, but with a ruler s.Television (at
its Television! can verify).
It forgets, however, like the gentleman that everyone has television / monitor, a certain tolerance and it always requires a long and insightful statement that it is impossible to make a circle on video, the s.jedem Television looks exactly the same round.
Even a TFT monitor, with an exact 4:3 - or 16:9-pixel ratio works, does not always synonymous exact ratio. Time to measure it! ;-)
Antwort von Archimedes:
Although my comments obviously lead to this conclusion as evidence, they were certainly not intended. Instead, I went to a plausibility check. In addition, I have measured it in an image editing program. ;-)
