[FFmpeg-trac] #8590(undetermined:closed): 'telecine=pattern' error for p24, soft telecined sources

[FFmpeg]

#8590: 'telecine=pattern' error for p24, soft telecined sources
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
             Reporter:  markfilipak  |                    Owner:
                 Type:  defect       |                   Status:  closed
             Priority:  normal       |                Component:
                                     |  undetermined
              Version:  unspecified  |               Resolution:  invalid
             Keywords:               |               Blocked By:
             Blocking:               |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0            |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by markfilipak):

 Replying to [comment:30 pdr0]:
 > Replying to [comment:29 markfilipak]:
 -snip-
 > > I think that most of what you're seeing as judder is actually twitter
 from the combing. I think it would disappear if the combed fields could
 actually be blended. Certainly, if it is judder, there's less of it than
 for any other telecine scheme.
 >
 > Are you looking at the correct file ?
 >
 > blenddeint_combedonly.mp4

 Yes, but -- embarrased -- I didn't see any difference. In single-step, I
 do now.

 You know what? After looking at full-speed, 4-6-4-6 v. 5-5-5-5, both
 combed and deinterlaced, I actually think 5-5-5-5 combed looks best. I'll
 attach it.

 -snip-
 > > The reason I say it's twitter, not judder, is that if you do the
 calculations of average temporal location of the temporal center of the
 pictures and their durations, the cadence really is
 1/15s-1/15s-1/15s-1/15s.
 >
 > "twitter" is a reserved term for something else

 It is. It is? I've not found a definition for "twitter", though it's cited
 a lot. Got a link?

 > The 3rd frame (starting from frame 1) is what time? It's a blend of 2
 times, whether or not you leave it as combed, vs. blend deinterlace.

 Agreed. But, you see, I think in terms of visual density, not edges. So,
 to me, the moving visual density of the combed version of 5-5-5-5 looks
 best... maybe it's just me.

 > {{{
 > AA(AB)BBCC(CD)DD
 > }}}

 Oh, I get it. You're showing progressive frames as A, for example, and
 interlaced/combed as (AB). I portray the same thing like this:

 {{{
 [A/a][A/a][A/b][B/b][B/b][C/c][C/c][C/d][D/d][D/d]
 }}}

 Uppercase: Odd lines
 Lowercase: even

 You might find this handy: I portray 30fps-telecine thusly

 {{{
 [A/a][B/b][B/c][C/d][D/d]
 }}}

 and 30fps-telecast fields thusly

 {{{
 [1/-][-/2][3/-][-/4][5/-][-/6]
 }}}

 and with underline chars when needed to keep timing relationships. For
 example:

 {{{
 [A/a__________][B/b__________][C/c__________][D/d__________]
 [A/a_______][B/b_______][B/c_______][C/d_______][D/d_______]
 [1/-_][-/2_][3/-_][-/4_][5/-_][-/6_][7/-_][-/8_][9/-_][-/0_]
 }}}

 (Of course, this only works for monospaced fonts.)

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/8590#comment:32>
FFmpeg <https://ffmpeg.org>
FFmpeg issue tracker