[MPlayer-users] Digital camcoder

[D Richard Felker III]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:48:42AM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:32:07PM -0500, D Richard Felker III wrote:
> > [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 02:24:12PM +0100, Christian Berger wrote:
> > > > > If it's intended to stay "video" then I'd
> > > > > definitely go for interlacing, if you plan to use it for progressive
> > > > > displays then deinterlace it or try to get real progressive equipment.
> > > >
> > > > Never deinterlace, it's just destructive. Always get real progressive
> > > > equipment.
> > > 
> > > Yes, if you can get progressive equipment that does 50 fps at a decent 
> > > resolution, but you simply cannot get that yet.
> > 
> > Why would I want 50fps? 25 is perfectly fine, higher than 24 which is
> > good enough for films.
> > 
> 
> 25 fps is _not_ enough. for 25 (or 24) fps to look smooth you need a lot of
> motion blur.
> 
> Ever wondered why normal TV looks so much smoother (when looking high motion
> programs.. for example sports which are captured using tv-cameras) than for 
> example Mplayer playing from tv-card? It's because tv displays at 50 fps.. 
> and mplayer only at 25.

Smoother? IMO it looks horrible because all the edges are jagged from
interlacing. This is especially bad when watching sports. Yes it's
temporally smoother, but spacially it has extremely un-smooth
artifacts.

> You _see_ the difference. Check http://www.100fps.com for example videos and
> lot of information about interlacing/deinterlacing..

I'm quite familiar with it all, and interlacing is simply not
acceptable. Even on a true interlaced display it looks very bad. Yes
50 or 60 fps would be nice, but not at the expense of making the
picture look horrible. In the mean time, fixing the exposure time on
your camera to give proper blur at 25 fps is the best solution.

Rich