120FPS converstion

[EroJiJI]

Hi i have this divx 5 raw source that is in perfect quility. Problem is that it was encoded under 120fps. When i use it in Nandub or Virtualdub it starts getting chopy. It will look like it's going 30fps out of 120fps. If you guys can help me thanks alots. Please help me out :p

[buba king]

in virtual dub.

Video->Frame Rate..->Frame rate decination-> Decimate By: 4

120/4=30

:)

[DJ Bobo]

What's the matter with those 120fps videos?!
I saw similiar questions in the forum, asking how to convert such framerates back to normal.

Who's the freak doing such files?! :confused:

[theReal]

...and where can I buy a cpu that can decode 120fps files??? :confused: ;)

[cordraconis]

student huh?

(at the risk of ending up in a flame-war with Intel-enhousiasts)

try www.amd.com :D
(and don't forget a decent cooler!)

héhé

P.S. 120 fps is indeed freaky. (personally I think 30 fps already is, but that's what you get, when you'r living in Europe :) )

[theReal]

Are you sure an XP 2200 will play 120fps Divx5 files if they are full resolution, 720x288??

I have a Thunderbird 1400 running at 1500MHz, FSB 150, 512MB PC2100 RAM (CL2) and it shouldn't be one MHz less even for 384x288 @ 50fps (I still want to set the postprocessing level to 4 at least).

btw. 50 or 60fps can be worth it for high motion scenes if the source is an interlaced capture. It does improve the fluidity of motions (just like in games you don't want to play at 25fps, you need at least 50fps to have full control of fast motion).
I don't know what the benefit of 120fps could be - there are only two fields, so interlaced ntsc is 60fps and more frames won't improve the quality...

[Acaila]

Are you sure an XP 2200 will play 120fps Divx5 files if they are full resolution, 720x288??No way would that be enough. I just tested it for fun on a 100fps video, and at a resolution of 704x304 my computer could only play back at an average of 80fps (no post-processing). Cpu load maxed at 50% during this, so I guess only one processor was used.

Still it was fun :)

[buba king]

Originally posted by cordraconis
P.S. 120 fps is indeed freaky. (personally I think 30 fps already is, but that's what you get, when you'r living in Europe :) )

hu? 30fps is not a standard in europe :p its 25fps :) anyhow.. 29.97 is very freeky! idiot americans with their poor standards :p

[cordraconis]

Originally posted by buba king


hu? 30fps is not a standard in europe :p its 25fps :)

Héhé, indeed, if you are used to 25fps, then 30fps seems "odd". That was what I meant :D

hehe

[theReal]

After I've been messing around with converting some NTSC DVD's that needed to be ivtc'ed ("force film" in DVD2AVI didn't work, so there was no other choice) I can only say:

I'm so glad to live in a PAL country!! The ivtc process is so complicated, you need other settings for every movie - and sometimes you find out in the end that one or two scenes suddenly stutter like hell, or some scene or the other still shows interlacing.
In addition to that, NTSC has a lower resolution than PAL.

I have access to some other ntsc DVD's, but I decided I rather borrow those movies as PAL DVD's if I want to encode them to Divx. I will only go through the hassles of ivtc in the future if there's no other choice (like with the Schindler's List DVD from China that's not available as a legal release, only on LD and VHS)

[DJ Bobo]

Sorry, but for Anime, there is almost no other choice, most NTSC Anime DVDs are IVTCable, which is very nice to get a progressive DivX stream. The PAL Anime DVDs are most of the time not speeded up, which means, there will be necessarely blends in the DivX and this won't look pretty. So here NTSC discs are most of the time better.

For movies, there is no real difference, most NTSC movies are encoded as FILM, so no IVTC is needed, and PAL movies are most of the time speeded up -> both are OK.

And because of the resolution: if you can't compare directly, please don't tell me you can tell that the NTSC version isn't sharp enough! (even directly compared this won't be easy!) both are very sharp (PAL having a higher sharpness of course, but not necessarely detectable as said), and NTSC has here the advantadge to have more bitrate per macroblock than PAL DVDs, so NTSC have a higher image quality potential, especially when encoded 720x480 24fps (FILM).
So PAL DVDs need more bitrate to achieve the same image quality, because of their higher sharpness.
Just in theory: let's take an NTSC disc encoded with 720x480 24fps (FILM) @9800kbps. To achieve the same image quality, the PAL disc has to be encoded @12250kbps, which isn't possible, since the DVD video bitrate is limited to 9800kbps already!

[theReal]

For movies, there is no real difference, most NTSC movies are encoded as FILM, so no IVTC is needed, and PAL movies are most of the time speeded up -> both are OK.

OK, I didn't know - then it's not that bad as I thought for all the ntsc encoders :)