interesting info in dgindex...

[scraper]

Anyone ever seen this (attached file...)? Very curious as to how that came into being...


it's an extra on the R2 Labyrinth special edition... another weird thing: You can definitely see that the source is interlaced, but the info says progressive... :confused: i have seen it the other way around...

[Guest]

Anyone ever seen this (attached file...)? Very curious as to how that came into being... If you'd like to upload a piece of the VOB to my server, I can figure it out for you.

You can definitely see that the source is interlaced, but the info says progressive... :confused: i have seen it the other way around... The indication just reports how it was encoded, it says nothing about the actual content.

[scraper]

Hi Donald,

I've uploaded a 15 mb piece... made myself a directory for it named "scraper"... Hope i'm not overdoing it size-wise...

Noticed it starts with pal and switches to NTSC Film in the process...

And I know about the diffecrence between the actual frames and the flags on interlaced/progressive... It was just the fact that i've always seen it the other way 'round... it's the 1st time i've seen interlaced frames encoded as progressive... :)

Thanks in advance for looking at it... And thanks a bunch for all your work :thanks:

JP

I just noticed i'm using an outdated version (1.2.1)... Will try new version when i get back home...

[Guest]

Interesting. If you parse the D2V, you see that it is TFF until halfway through, at which point a single RFF flag is set, which changes the field order of the encoded frames (of course, the display order thus remains the same throughout, due to the extra field). Whenever DGIndex sees repeat flags, he will want to report it as Film or "NTSC". That is wrong, it should be reported as Film vs. Video.

So, your clip has a PAL frame rate and a repeat flag but doesn't have a film pulldown pattern. Thus it was reported as PAL, 100% NTSC. :)

I'll change the string to report Film versus Video.

Thank you for pointing out this interesting incoherency.

[scraper]

heh... cool... So i actually contributed something to your excellent piece of software? Excellent...
Your explenation is somewhat beyond me...
Someday i will understand... Well, maybe not, but we can't all be geniusses right? ;)

Thanks!

Jan Peter

[scharfis_brain]

actually, has it been encoded progressively or interlaced?
Because this VOB contains fieldblend garbage.

[SeeMoreDigital]

actually, has it been encoded progressively or interlaced?
Because this VOB contains fieldblend garbage.Agreed.... It's bloody awful :scared:

[scraper]

actually, has it been encoded progressively or interlaced?
Because this VOB contains fieldblend garbage.

it was encoded as progressive (see 1st post ;) ) well... it is "just an extra"... That would probably be the reason... or they realy have no idea what they're doing...

See you, Jan Peter

[SeeMoreDigital]

it was encoded as progressive (see 1st post ;) ) well... it is "just an extra"... That would probably be the reason... or they realy have no idea what they're doing...

See you, Jan PeterAlthough the images have been transfered onto the DVD and maybe even flagged as progressive.... Does not mean to say it really is progressive... Who knows which source was used to compile this DVD transfer.... But it was certainly a poor one

When you flick through your sample one frame at a time, you can clearly see field blending ;)


Cheers