25p to 60i (using pulldown technique)

[kolak]

I've been told that there is a pro solution which does 25p to 60i conversion over 13 steps cadence.
I assume this is can be done with avisynth as swell?

[colours]

Anything involving interlacing is evil and you should not use interlacing ever. That said:

source
ChangeFPS(60) # or ChangeFPS(60000, 1001) depending on what you need
AssumeTFF() # or AssumeBFF
SeparateFields()
SelectEvery(4, 0, 3)
Weave()

[feisty2]

Irregular pull down

[johnmeyer]

There is absolutely nothing evil or wrong about interlacing. It works great, and has been in use for longer than most people on this planet have been alive. It is still used today, and you watch interlaced TV all the time, and it looks wonderful.

That said, it does require more skill and knowledge to work with in the digital realm. In particular, any resizing or change in cadence does require deinterlacing, a step that always degrades the video. But, since re-sizing and frame rate changes ALSO degrade the video, deinterlacing, when used for those operations, isn't necessarily an "evil" thing. (I would advise never to deinterlace for any other reason.)

However, I will agree that interlacing appears to be a bad thing since so many people screw up their video because they don't understand how to handle it properly. This forum is filled with hundreds of posts that perfectly illustrate this point.

As for your request, the answer will depend on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to put it on a DVD, there are some pretty nifty solutions that have been posted in this forum which involve creating some unique pulldown flags. I didn't even know such a thing existed until I "went to school" in this long thread:

How to de-interlace 25i coming from 8 mm film transfer (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1693022#post1693022)

Despite the heading, this person wanted to do something very similar to what you are doing. I linked to the post in that thread where I learned something I didn't know, namely that you can use something called DGPulldown (http://www.videohelp.com/software/DGPulldown) to accomplish this feat, without any re-encoding. The result will play on an NTSC DVD player. Some people don't like the solution because it is interlaced (see my comments above) and also because they don't like the effect of pulldown (repeated fields). However, having tried all the other alternatives to pulldown, and since I deal with film transfers every day of my life, it is my opinion that this gives you the best-looking, sharpest results, and without any problems that you get doing speed changes or de-interlacing using motion estimation, bobbing, etc.

[wonkey_monkey]

It works great, and has been in use for longer than most people on this planet have been alive. It is still used today

You could say the same about fossil fuels and snail mail ;)

Interlacing only "works great" because everyone was forced to come up with ways to handle it when we started to move away from CRTs.

you watch interlaced TV all the time, and it looks wonderful.

You watch a progressive reconstruction from an interlaced source, and it can look terrible if it isn't done right - and doing it right costs, computationally.

[johnmeyer]

I am certainly not going to get into a discussion about whether I'd rather have 60p as a standard rather than 60i. We are not supposed to talk about "better" in this forum, but I think I'm on safe ground saying that we'd all prefer 60p to 60i. However, as an engineer, I understand the fact that broadcast bandwidth, computing horsepower, computer memory, and many other constraints make interlaced video the best way to get a better picture than would otherwise be available to the customer, given these constraints.

It is true that most (but not all) viewing devices do create a "progressive reconstruction" (I like that term) for displaying the result, but I think most of the ones I've seen actually do a remarkably good job compared to 90% (or perhaps 99%) of the attempts to "do it yourself." There are clearly a few people in this forum who know how to do it right, but based on the video people send to me for restoration, I'd say that is the exception, and not the rule.

[feisty2]

Interlacing chroma subsampling color space other than CIE precision less than float
Should all go fuck themselves and be dead immediately

[colours]

There is absolutely nothing evil or wrong about interlacing. It works great, and has been in use for longer than most people on this planet have been alive. It is still used today, and you watch interlaced TV all the time, and it looks wonderful.

If it works great for you, cool. I hardly even watch TV, much less interlaced TV, but on the rare occasion I do switch on my television set, I'm greeted with Moiré and shimmer, thanks to interlacing.

My objection isn't so much to deinterlacing (which is a restorative step) as it is to interlacing (which is a destructive step). Without interlacing, deinterlacing wouldn't be necessary. I think I've read papers showing that interlacing doesn't actually save bandwidth when lossy compression is used, but I can't find a link and it's apparently very difficult to search for this because all I get are descriptions of H.264 instead, so maybe I'm misremembering.

Maybe I should conduct some tests of my own when I'm feeling less lazy.

Some people don't like the solution because it is interlaced (see my comments above) and also because they don't like the effect of pulldown (repeated fields). However, having tried all the other alternatives to pulldown, and since I deal with film transfers every day of my life, it is my opinion that this gives you the best-looking, sharpest results, and without any problems that you get doing speed changes or de-interlacing using motion estimation, bobbing, etc.

I dislike this not because it's interlaced or because it's pulldown; I dislike this because it's unnecessary munging of the video. Maybe use something a bit less ancient than DVDs, like H.264 in Matroska with literally any frame rate you want, and you don't even have to do any destructive operation to your video (other than the lossy compression). Otoh, if you do need it to be a DVD for whatever reason, I second johnmeyer's suggestion.

feisty2: Don't cut yourself on that edge, bud.

[feisty2]

@johnmeyer
1080p30 looks definitely way better than 1080i60
So yeah, interlacing is an evil b**ch

[poisondeathray]

1080p30 looks definitely way better than 1080i60
So yeah, interlacing is an evil b**ch

Depends on what the content is

I'd rather watch 1080i60 for sports like hockey, football, UFC etc... than 1080p30

[kuchikirukia]

@johnmeyer
1080p30 looks definitely way better than 1080i60
So yeah, interlacing is an evil b**ch

Get with the times, grandpa. Miku hasn't been projected at under 60fps in years. There's a reason for that. 30fps just doesn't work in a 60fps world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEcEJxPDsk

60fps is how it should be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VP1YPL4VWc

[feisty2]

Get with the times, grandpa. Miku hasn't been projected at under 60fps in years. There's a reason for that. 30fps just doesn't work in a 60fps world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEcEJxPDsk

60fps is how it should be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VP1YPL4VWc

60p is better than 30p, fact
And I'm talking about 60i and 30p
Not 60p and 30p
Great grandma

[kuchikirukia]

60p is better than 30p, fact
And I'm talking about 60i and 30p
Not 60p and 30p
Great grandma

How do you think those went out in 60fps? Bluray doesn't do 60p.

[feisty2]

1. Motion flowed to 60p
2. Native 60p, what bluray supports != the only thing a camera can do

[kuchikirukia]

1. Motion flowed to 60p
2. Native 60p, what bluray supports != the only thing a camera can do

They're 60i Blurays.
Mikupa Tokyo and Sapporo 2011 were released in 1080p30. Totally ruined them.

[Sharc]

@johnmeyer
1080p30 looks definitely way better than 1080i60
So yeah, interlacing is an evil b**ch
Nope. Not in general. I recall the many (blind) tests and debates during the introduction of digital broadcast TV on this subject.

[feisty2]

If it was shot at 60i, then yeah, it destroyed the vid, I'm talking about NATIVE 30p, not bullshit deinterlaced from 60i

[Sparktank]

Ultra HD Blu-ray will support (up to) 60p.
James Cameron will love that when he films the next Avatars in >48fps.

[kuchikirukia]

I'm talking about NATIVE 30p, not bullshit deinterlaced from 60i

60i > native 30p. You can interpolate 60i's missing fields much better than you can 30p's missing frames.

[Sharc]

The battle for digital broadcast TV was actually between 1080i or 720p. No clear winner.

[feisty2]

Better my ass
Even 4k doesn't actually hit the limit of human vision of spatial resolution, and 1920x540??? You gotta be kidding me
And yet 24fps already looks kinda smooth to human eyes

[kuchikirukia]

30fps doesn't come close to the limit of human visual temporal resolution.
540 lines spaced 1 pixel apart and with two references just 16.6ms on either side can be interpolated to 1080p60 better than a 1080 line frame with nothing on either side within 33ms. We can bridge a pixel. Things tend to get lost across 33ms, though.

[feisty2]

Yeah, and movies are 24fps PROGRESSIVE, cuz 48i is just way too fancy for movies

[feisty2]

How about we take one line out of 4 lines and make it 120fps?

[Sharc]

30fps doesn't come close to the limit of human visual temporal resolution.

Absolutely. The "remedy" was controlled motion blur .....

[DarkSpace]

This seems to have devolved into a thread about how evil interlacing is when the source is progressive. While I agree about that, in general, this is only on the assumption that you have a choice between e.g. 60i and 60p. Once it comes down to 60i vs 30p, I have no clear opinion on the topic (I'd need to either read some papers on it, or conduct some tests myself), because in that case, you actually lose something in either case (spacial resolution for 60i, temporal resolution for 30p) while in 60i vs 60p you only lose in the case of 60i (spacial resolution).
About BD not supporting 60p: I have no sources on this at the moment, but I think I've read that BD does support 60p video, but only 720p60, not 1080p60. I may be wrong here, though, but 720p60 vs 1080i60 is something where I can easily imagine preferring the 720p version.

Anyway, you're all missing the most important part: johnmeyer suggested using pulldown flags on the final encode (which may well already be the source file). This means that the discussion about how the evils of interlacing is actually rather meaningless, because when using pulldown flags, what's encoded is a progressive video at a certain framerate, and the flags (which may, of course, be ignored if the player wishes to do so) only tell the player how to output the video in a framerate (fieldrate?) that is compliant with the playback medium's spec (e.g. 60i for DVD). And that, in my opinion, is a very good and very sensible suggestion, because it makes the video compliant to the DVD spec while still keeping it in its original progressive framerate. So there's no destruction going on at all. And restoration to its original form is also simple - just ignore the pulldown flags.

Edit: If you're using x264 for encoding (e.g. because your target is not DVD, but BD, and you want to convert 25p to 60000/1000i (as opposed to 60000/1001i), you can also use --pulldown euro, I believe. That should set the flags properly for this case. (I may be wrong, or misremembering things, though. Check this before doing it, lest you waste a lot of time!)

[Music Fan]

I've been told that there is a pro solution which does 25p to 60i conversion over 13 steps cadence.
I assume this is can be done with avisynth as swell?
You can make interpolation to get 60p then interlace to get 60i (actually 30i, see below why*) with a script like this ;
source(25p...)
assumefps(25)
InterFrame(NewNum=60000, NewDen=1001, cores=2)#to get 59,94... fps
assumeTFF()#or ComplementParity()
separatefields()
selectevery(4,0,3)
weave()#29,97i (also called 30i and 60i)


* The term 60i is a nonsense widely spread, 30i (or 29,97i) should be used instead because the number should always refer to the framerate and not the fieldrate to avoid confusion, then the i or p is enough to tell if it's interlaced or progressive.


About 60p in 1080p : it's not officially supported by BD but I've read on another forum that a guy made a 1080p60 (or 1080p50) BD with Pinnacle Studio 17 and read it successfully on a Sony BDP-S4200.
But there is another solution that will work with more Blu-ray players : AVCHD, because AVCHD supports 50p and 60p in 1080p since 2011 (AVCHD 2.0) ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specification_addendum_.28AVCHD_2.0.29
I tested it successfully on 2 players (h264 @ 28 Mbps in 1080p50 burnt with ImgBurn on dvd+rw in AVCHD format created with TSMuxer).

[colours]

* The term 60i is a nonsense widely spread, 30i (or 29,97i) should be used instead because the number should always refer to the framerate and not the fieldrate to avoid confusion, then the i or p is enough to tell if it's interlaced or progressive.

I take it that you're into prescriptive linguistics, which unfortunately (or fortunately!) isn't how English works. In my opinion, "60i" is more appropriate a description when there are 60 temporally distinct pictures than "30i", convention be damned. I'd spell out "30 frames/s" or "60 fields/s" if there was any risk of confusion, though.

[kolak]

It's not about liking interlaced or not, but be able to deliver "NTSC" friendly masters from 25p sources.

I don't like interlaced at all, but try to create high quality 23.976p, 29.97p master from 25p source (without speed change!) with motion adaptive technique. Not a single solution can do it at acceptable level for a random source, that why people use 60i.
There is a huge need for it in a real world! It's for broadcast, which is crap quality anyway. The problem is that motion adaptive artefacts are visible, where a bit jerky video is more acceptable.

[kolak]

You can make interpolation to get 60p then interlace to get 60i (actually 30i, see below why*) with a script like this ;
source(25p...)
assumefps(25)
InterFrame(NewNum=60000, NewDen=1001, cores=2)#to get 59,94... fps
assumeTFF()#or ComplementParity()
separatefields()
selectevery(4,0,3)
weave()#29,97i (also called 30i and 60i)


* The term 60i is a nonsense widely spread, 30i (or 29,97i) should be used instead because the number should always refer to the framerate and not the fieldrate to avoid confusion, then the i or p is enough to tell if it's interlaced or progressive.


About 60p in 1080p : it's not officially supported by BD but I've read on another forum that a guy made a 1080p60 (or 1080p50) BD with Pinnacle Studio 17 and read it successfully on a Sony BDP-S4200.
But there is another solution that will work with more Blu-ray players : AVCHD, because AVCHD supports 50p and 60p in 1080p since 2011 (AVCHD 2.0) ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specification_addendum_.28AVCHD_2.0.29
I tested it successfully on 2 players (h264 @ 28 Mbps in 1080p50 burnt with ImgBurn on dvd+rw in AVCHD format created with TSMuxer).

I know about interframe, but it's way not good enough for 25p source. 50i or "better" in terms of motion source is ok, but anything <30p is far from being solid.
Everyone here knows what 60i is- it's quicker to type :)

I'm after a pattern which will do 25p to 60i by 13 steps (used in pro solutions) cadence. Because 25p already has a "limited" motion apparently using this technique doesn't really make it much worse after conversion.

[kolak]

I take it that you're into prescriptive linguistics, which unfortunately (or fortunately!) isn't how English works. In my opinion, "60i" is more appropriate a description when there are 60 temporally distinct pictures than "30i", convention be damned. I'd spell out "30 frames/s" or "60 fields/s" if there was any risk of confusion, though.

I agree with this, but try to convince BBC guys:) They use i29.97, which is is apparently the correct way.

[kolak]

Anything involving interlacing is evil and you should not use interlacing ever. That said:

source
ChangeFPS(60) # or ChangeFPS(60000, 1001) depending on what you need
AssumeTFF() # or AssumeBFF
SeparateFields()
SelectEvery(4, 0, 3)
Weave()

As I said- way not good enough for a random source. To many motion adaptive artefacts! I've used interframe a lot, but only for 50i+ sources in terms of motion.

I need irregular pulldown- apparently something with 13 steps.
Would file with frame count converted this way help?

update: sorry I saw interframe word here :) Yes, something like this. I this the best what can be done?

[colours]

As I said- way not good enough for a random source. To many motion adaptive artefacts! I've used interframe a lot, but only for 50i+ sources in terms of motion.

I need irregular pulldown- apparently something with 13 steps.
Would file with frame count converted this way help?

The only Google search result for "13 steps cadence" is just this thread, so I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean, but if you meant 3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2, that's for converting 24p to 50i, not for converting 25p to 60i.

The pattern for 25p to 60i pulldown is 3:2:3:2:2, which is what the script does. For 60000/1001 fields/s output, you can either convert to 60 fields/s first then slow it down by a factor of 1.001 (watch out for audio desync, etc.), or just convert to 60000/1001i directly.

[Music Fan]

I know about interframe, but it's way not good enough for 25p source.
What did you expect ? Of course there are artifacts with interpolation, but how do you hope to transform 25p in "60i" without interpolation or duplication and without creating artifacts ?

[Music Fan]

I take it that you're into prescriptive linguistics, which unfortunately (or fortunately!) isn't how English works. In my opinion, "60i" is more appropriate a description when there are 60 temporally distinct pictures than "30i", convention be damned. I'd spell out "30 frames/s" or "60 fields/s" if there was any risk of confusion, though.
I understand that the word frame can have a larger signification and may refer to the number of instants captured by a camera, which are thus fields in the case of cameras making only interlaced videos.
But in the video encoding world, it's confusing ; all videos have a framerate, and as its name stands for, framerate is about the number of frames (which include top and bottom fields), not the number of fields (I mean for Avisynth, Virtual Dub, MediaInfo and all tools that display the framerate).
If it contains interlaced material, just type 30i, there is nothing more shorter and easy to type than this when speaking about a video containing 30 frames with 60 fields (I mean with the fluidity of interlaced videos, because we can of course also separate the fields of progressive videos).
I don't find good reason to speak in framerate about progressive videos and in fieldrate about interlaced videos, especially when calling it framerate in both cases.
60i is kind of pleonastic.

[kolak]

What did you expect ? Of course there are artifacts with interpolation, but how do you hope to transform 25p in "60i" without interpolation or duplication and without creating artifacts ?

Duplication is different than artefact. Duplication only affects motion, it doesn't break frame itself. It's about minimising visible artefacts. Interframe and other solutions create way to many for low fps sources at the moment, so not very usable in this case. You may find some 25p source which convert quite well, but we're talking about 'universal' conversion.

The only way is to play with pulldown- make it as smooth as possible.

[kolak]

The only Google search result for "13 steps cadence" is just this thread, so I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean, but if you meant 3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2, that's for converting 24p to 50i, not for converting 25p to 60i.



No, I need 25p to 60i to be as smooth as possible.

What about this one:

https://www.wetransfer.com/downloads/fc4c9d2a717a185953ad4aac2baa04e920150922130743/6dad346b3cec211e6557bca0d0bc8e2820150922130743/cd3e12

Is this not 3:2:3:2:2?

[Music Fan]

Duplication is different than artefact. Duplication only affects motion, it doesn't break frame itself. It's about minimising visible artefacts. Interframe and other solutions create way to many for low fps sources at the moment, so not very usable in this case. You may find some 25p source which convert quite well, but we're talking about 'universal' conversion.

The only way is to play with pulldown- make it as smooth as possible.
Ok, but I believed you wanted to avoid duplication too.
So actually you want to find a good duplication pattern.
I don't believe in miracle, if the new framerate is not a multiple of the original framerate, you will see judder (I mean with duplication).

[kolak]

I know, but this is better than all motion artefacts.
Question is: can it be done in many ways or just 3:2:3:2:2 (I think this is what I have been told as 13 step cadence)?

[kolak]

Anything involving interlacing is evil and you should not use interlacing ever. That said:

source
ChangeFPS(60) # or ChangeFPS(60000, 1001) depending on what you need
AssumeTFF() # or AssumeBFF
SeparateFields()
SelectEvery(4, 0, 3)
Weave()

This will cause problems on some scene changes, no?

Is there a way to avoid it?

[Music Fan]

Question is: can it be done in many ways or just 3:2:3:2:2 (I think this is what I have been told as 13 step cadence)?
You could maybe try to double one frame all 5 frames (and you will get 30p that you can interlace), but I'm not sure it will be better than what you propose, this could even be worse.

[Sharc]

@kolak
You may want to check out this:
http://rationalqm.us/dgpulldown/dgpulldown.html

The 13 step cadence has been discussed somewhere along this thread:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88031

which finally lead to the development of the DGpulldown tool.

[kolak]

This unknown 13 step cadence is 2:2:3:2:3, so nothing fancy.

[kolak]

@kolak
You may want to check out this:
http://rationalqm.us/dgpulldown/dgpulldown.html

The 13 step cadence has been discussed somewhere along this thread:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88031

which finally lead to the development of the DGpulldown tool.

Thanks, yes I figure it out.
My last question is about scene changes- can it create bad scene cuts?

[Sharc]

Thanks, yes I figure it out.
My last question is about scene changes- can it create bad scene cuts?
In case of interlaced frames one field may be taken from scene A and the second field may come from scene B, I think
(If this is what you mean by bad scene cuts?)

[kolak]

Yes, this can cause problems when watched don TV with flashes on scene changes (or not). This is my remaining question.

[Sharc]

Perhaps you can get more help when you post in Donald Graft's (DG...) forum:
http://rationalqm.us/board/index.php

[johnmeyer]

Better my ass
Even 4k doesn't actually hit the limit of human vision of spatial resolution, and 1920x540??? You gotta be kidding me
And yet 24fps already looks kinda smooth to human eyesThere is a lot of strong opinion, and coarse language being voiced, but not a lot of factual information.

The collective wisdom of the engineers who designed both the original NTSC standard, and then the different set of engineers who designed our current set of international digital standards beats my knowledge of the subject, and also trumps everyone else in this forum. They understand the broad scope of all the engineering tradeoffs far better than anyone here.

As for 4K not hitting the limit of human visual resolution, that is a perfect example of the narrow filter being used to make such statements. It completely fails to take into account the most important element in any discussion of resolution, which of course is screen size. I spent a decade in the desktop publishing revolution, and in the print world, resolution is usually expressed in dots per inch or lines per inch, not in terms of total pixel count. When talking about video, DPI is seldom used, but for this discussion it is a more important measure than pixel count.

Why?

Well, as an obvious and irrefutable example, 4K video on a hand-held device will be indistinguishable from even 720p because the human eye cannot see the difference when all those dots are crammed together in a small space. This continues to be true even as you go to larger displays like small (13 "- 19") TV sets and computer displays. However, when you get to the lower end of current "big screen" TVs, let's say 55" diagonal size, you begin to see differences, but they are subtle. As you watch on displays larger than that, most people will begin to see the differences.

So, when the discussion is about 4K vs. 1920x1080 (interlaced or progressive), the spatial differences don't really become apparent or important, until you get to pretty big displays, and therefore 4K really is not important -- and never will be important -- unless the customer is watching on a really large display.

We've had this discussion over at the Sony forum, and the general consensus there is that, for display in the home, 4K is not going to be a big deal, but that it is a fantastic acquisition format, and that it is also a major innovation for theatrical projection. Having been to many 4K demonstrations, I completely agree: on small screens, it is not compelling, and in fact, no one tell the difference. We can debate at what screen size the difference becomes important, but I don't have any good, objective measure to offer to help define that. My general sense is that under ideal conditions, you can begin to see a difference at around 45" displays, but for most people (and that is key when talking about market size and commercial viability), the difference won't be important until you get to much larger displays.

Oh yes, seating distance from the display is also important.

Finally, the whole issue of interlacing comes up because the human brain really can tell a difference -- and it is not a subtle difference -- between 24 temporal events per second and 60 temporal events per second. As has already been mentioned, it is not as fun to watch sports at 24p or even 30p, as ESPN streams on the web. Therefore there is a lot of incentive to design a system that can transmit and display 60 temporal events per second, but at a price that most people can afford, and with technology that can actually be mass-produced.

I really do not understand the hostile tone in so many of these posts. We have some great choices in how we acquire our own video, and 60p 1920x1080 is easily available to everyone, so if you don't like some of the other standards, you don't ever have to deal with them. You can also easily get 4K camcorders. Use those and be happy.

Finally, the people here in this forum who seem to "hate" interlacing also claim to never watch TV. I am truly puzzled as to why they even care about something that they don't have to deal with.

[johnmeyer]

No, I need 25p to 60i to be as smooth as possible.As others have said, there is no "magic" pattern that is going to be better. If you want to reduce the problem, you can do what the "pros" have been doing for years, which is to change the playback speed of the original, without altering the frame at all, and then do your pulldown on that. This has been suggested in many other similar threads in this forum, but I don't think it has been mentioned here (I may have missed it). What you do is use assumefps(24) to change the playback speed, and then apply a standard 3:2 pulldown what results from that. You then adjust the audio speed, without changing pitch. I do that in Vegas, but others may know of a way to do it in AVISynth. Yes, the result will play a little slower, but that "artifact" may be more agreeable to you than the judder you get from pulldown needed to go from 25p.

[Music Fan]

What you do is use assumefps(24) to change the playback speed, and then apply a standard 3:2 pulldown what results from that. You then adjust the audio speed, without changing pitch. I do that in Vegas, but others may know of a way to do it in AVISynth.
If it's for an Ntsc dvd, one don't even need to create 3:2 pulldown ; feed the mpeg-2 encoder with 23.976 fps and encode in soft pulldown, the encoder will create the 3:2 pulldown flag (most of movies are encoded this way on Ntsc dvds).
To change audio speed and/or pitch, I use Hybrid (which uses Sox for audio changes) ;
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=153035