Quality: YUY2 vs. HuffYUV 2.1.1 vs. Matrox MJPeg

[Michel Carleer]

Kevin,
This 72Hz is something I still don't understand: You are telling me that by adding two short periods where you voluntarily block the light, then it will give less eyestrain? Isn't it better to leave it on and have only one blocking per 1/24th of a second? I mean, during those two extra periods, you don't change anything, you just kind of switch off the light.
Michka

[Dr Mordrid]

I can tell you easy enough.

The one major problem I have with PICVideo is the non-linearity of its quality settings. The data rate for Q=19 runs well below that of Matrox's MJPeg at about 2.5 mb/s. Change it to Q=20 and it jumps WAY up to almost 6 mb/s. Jezz.....

At any rate the Q=20 setting does make for a nice enough video. It shows slightly fewer Gibbs (mosquito/squiggle) artifacts than Matrox's MJPeg.

Dr. Mordrid


[This message has been edited by Dr Mordrid (edited 21 January 2001).]

[KRSESQ]

Michka:

If you ever get a chance to see raw 24 fps motion picture progression without the use of a multi-bladed shutter, you'll see what I mean immediately.

At a raw 24 frames per second (one image scan per frame) there is a definite flicker to the image. Some may not notice it, some would find it nauseating to watch. It depends on the sensitivity of the viewer. Increasing the number of image scans per frame alleviates this.

I confess I don't know enough about the science behind the persistance of vision to explain it well. And it does sound a little counter-intuitive. I've been studying motion picture production for going on 30 years and have done many experiments of my own with a variety of projectors and cameras for the purpose of film copying and reproduction and film-to-video transfer. I've observed the phenomenon firsthand. I find it fascinating. In a way it's unfortunate that film seems to be dying out. it's a beautiful and elegant artform built on beautiful and elegant engineering.

Just wish it was a little less expensive!

Kevin

[Michel Carleer]

Kevin,
It's not that I don't believe you, it is just that, as you say, it is counter-intuitive. I admit it but, as a scientist, I would like to understand it.
Anyway, thank you for answering.
Michka

[KRSESQ]

Michka:

No prob.

Kevin