VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. I've hit a sad impass with my DVD player (RCA DRC212N) it is incapable of doing a proper 3:2 pulldown on 352x240 video, the player actually interlaces the video before ever resizing it, thusly making the interlace combs HUGE, ugly, and any 24fps 352x240 media unwatchable. My previous player (RCA RC524XX [I can't recall the last two digits, thusly I made them X's) could do it correctly. This upsets me because I wouldn't have thaught that RCA would have changed that in their player software, oh well.

    Regardless, I need to up the frame rate on 24fps source material to 30fps (Well, 29.97, but ya know, I do hate decimals) -without- any form of interlacing in the final encode, what's the best way to go about this?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DJ_Izumi
    Regardless, I need to up the frame rate on 24fps source material to 30fps (Well, 29.97, but ya know, I do hate decimals) -without- any form of interlacing in the final encode, what's the best way to go about this?
    If you have a 24fps (actually 23.976fps) progressive NTSC video you can encode it at 30fps (actualy 39.970fps) but it wll then be INTERLACED.

    However that is not a BAD thing if that is the only way your DVD player will work.

    All televisions can display INTERLACED video without interlaced artifacsts ala a computer monitor. So it is NOT a problem.

    Anyway you can really make a 23.976fps PROGRESSIVE video into a 29.970fps PROGRESSIVE video ... at least not without it not looking "right".

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  3. Are we talking mpeg-1 or mpeg-2? VCD or DVD?

    I suspect VCD (mpeg-1) from your post. If that is the case, re-encoding it to 29.976fps will not make it interlaced (Sorry FulciLives, you are wrong on that). It will reduce the quality though as you have less bits per frame for the encoder to work with. It should re-encode with no problems though.
    Quote Quote  
  4. No, this is a 352x240 Mpeg-2 (XSVCD) I'm just using Mpeg-2 for the added options. I know that a 3:2 pulldown is supposed to interlace the material for correct playback for NTSC, the issue is, the player isn't interlacing it correctly, making the interlaces HUGE and dramaticly visiable on the Television (actually, it looks like an entire field has been removed) The pulldown works correctly for anything with a vertical resolution of 480 pixels, but not with 240 pixels.

    My source material is all 640x480, if I could make Vdub interlace it with a 3:2 pulldown, and follow that with a de-interlacing filter, I should be able to get it to 29.97fps (Allbe it with those damnable blured frames, but I have no choice here)
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DJ_Izumi
    No, this is a 352x240 Mpeg-2 (XSVCD) I'm just using Mpeg-2 for the added options. I know that a 3:2 pulldown is supposed to interlace the material for correct playback for NTSC, the issue is, the player isn't interlacing it correctly, making the interlaces HUGE and dramaticly visiable on the Television (actually, it looks like an entire field has been removed) The pulldown works correctly for anything with a vertical resolution of 480 pixels, but not with 240 pixels.

    My source material is all 640x480, if I could make Vdub interlace it with a 3:2 pulldown, and follow that with a de-interlacing filter, I should be able to get it to 29.97fps (Allbe it with those damnable blured frames, but I have no choice here)
    When I read your first post I guess I didn't read it very well (sorry) and thought you had said 352x480 but now I realize you said 352x240

    However ... if the source is 640x480 you would get better quality doing 352x480 than 352x240 so I'm still confused as to why you want that and why it must be de-interlaced/progressive?

    Doesn't make any sense but it could just be me being dense

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  6. Well, the issue is odd. The reason I'm downsizing 640x480 material to 352x240 is simply for conversion speed, handleing time on a 25min television episode at 352x240 is rougly 4hrs (500mhz P3 CPU), at 704x480 or 720x480 it's roughly 16hrs (twice that if going VBR) I've also been practicing with 352x240 anamorphic MiniDVDs, agian, the 3:2 pulldown makes Mpeg-2 look like crap. I've just completed a'film' Mpeg-1 VCD and it actually plays back correctly, I'm encoding a test file right now for a non 3:2 pulldown 24fps Mpeg, but that can still have problems, even if it plays back correctly as an SVCD. DVD-Lab refuses to accept 24fps material and forces me to give it pulldown flags. :/ So If I could do some form of progressive framerate change, I'd be content.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Hrm, yes, the 23.976 FPS 352x240 SVCD plays back fine, unless I add the pulldown checkmark in Tmpgenc before encoding. Pulldown works fine for *x480 materials, but when it comes to *x240 it turns it into monkey crap. And there seems to be no way to make DVD-Lab take a 23.976 mpeg without screaming in pain.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Can you set the 3:2 pulldown on a progressive encoded video? I'm assuming you progressively encoded the 352x240 since the source was? Even as MPEG2?

    Kinda like ???x480 doesn't support the 16:9 DAR.
    To Be, Or, Not To Be, That, Is The Gazorgan Plan
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!