[MEncoder-users] Videos with fps 1000.000

[Mike Hodson]

On 3/20/07, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:

> I mean, what is this "pre-anticipate" thing you speak of?

First, I wasn't really thinking about grammar when i wrote that.
And, I was specifically replying to your statement:

> "For good formats, the time unit is specified by the file and adapted to the content."

Which I took to mean "you set the framerate to whatever the source requires".
But with WMV/ASF's variable framerate and the crispness vs motion, i
can only assume it didnt make much sense to microsoft to code it that
way? *shrugs*


> My point is that you're not going to get significant increases in
> image quality by lowering the framerate, because there will be much
> larger differences to encode, and thus more bits needed for each
> frame.
Yes, but sometimes you need to slow way down to keep something
readable. From 30fps motion of someone talking, to maybe 2-5fps of
some computerised text, thats acceptable imho.

> This is possible with almost any container, including even AVI, and
> done in practice quite often.
Perhaps I am just unaware of how to properly do this, as Ive been
wanting to properly encode some anime dvds of mine without the
blurring or choppiness of 24/dropping CG or 30/having the 5th frame
blur)

> > animation without using 120fps as a multiple, on many of todays anime

> Using a common time base of 1/120 (or 1001/120000) is the correct way
> to do it. Using a nonsensical time base like 1/1000 that has nothing
> to do with the content (and that cannot accurately represent the
> timing) is the broken WMV way.
I agree there. However, i must keep saying this format was not created
for a disk based scenario, and i don't know why microsoft really
hasn't changed it since then. And while broken, it sort of worked at
the time.
>
> No one using a 1/120 time base is encoding 120 frames per second. If
> you see "120 fps", it's just an application misinterpreting a time
> base as a framerate.
Again, my ignorance to the specifics of file formats and whatnot is
probably showing here. I was always under the impression there would
be some sort of image data stored for every frame in the file, and
that given enough of this extra data it would greatly increase
filesize (megabytes worth) if encoded that way.
>
> > shows from Japan.  Im curious though, just how much space would be
> > saved in that situation.
>
> Space saved? Versus what?
Versus not having the frames in the file at all, which is probably how
it is actually done if I went and looked at it and researched it
more...

If I am making myself out to be the uneducated ignorant person I
appear, I apoligize.
I just haven't had the time to concentrate on video encoding matters
for a good while now, and its starting to show even in my lack of
remembering details on how I ended up getting a divx .ogm with 2 sub
tracks, 3 sound streams, and taking that into a video dvd with
subpicture streams, 7 times over for one series ...

Mike