|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
BOOKS AND ARTICLES What are TV fields
I was forced to write this article (or rather a manual) by an astonishingly large number of television "figures" who have been working incorrectly for years and are not even aware of it. Even worse, they sow illiteracy in their midst. I am tired of constantly meeting in real life and online questions about television fields and it is sad to contemplate the almost complete indifference of others to them. This article will describe these mysterious "farmlands", what to sow on them and how to work with them. I started the article in 2001, but I could only finish it now (2004). Ask why it takes so long? Yes, everything is as usual: work, laziness, beer .... But during this time a lot of advice from smart people was studied, a lot of stupid things were heard from stupid people and a lot of bumps were stuffed with their own forehead. But, in the end, I could not resist and tried to put this whole puzzle into something digestible even for a beginner. Initially, I will make one clarity: I am an opponent of the fields. Yes, I don't like them. Yes, they often greatly complicate the technical process and I can’t wait until all television broadcasting switches from analog to digital and the fields are forgotten as an unnecessary legacy of analog broadcasting. But now I work with fields, because there are such concepts - "Rules" or "Standard". The version of the presentation will be quite perky, because for me there is nothing worse than to state (or study) such uninteresting dregs in the same uninteresting official language. Important points will be highlighted like this. Who is this article for...
...and to whom it is not addressed
Vocabulary Monitor, TV, kinescope - in this article we are talking about devices with a cathode ray tube as an information display device. I do not consider here plasma and liquid crystal panels, because they are devoid of the problems described in the article. TV field - it is also "field" or "half-frame"; half of a television frame; a set of even or odd rows. half frame - the same as the "television field", but already a purely Russian term. Now it is almost never used anywhere (except on the ancient State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company with the same ancient technical staff), because all the equipment is bourgeois and literature is written in bourgeois. Comb, comb - tacitly generally accepted names for the manifestation of fields when viewed on a computer monitor screen or in case of problems. Dominant field, field names - means from which line each frame of the image begins to be built. Here pundits tried their best and brought maximum ambiguity into the terminology. One joy - in the end, the fields can be of only two types, and so on. these boobies failed to completely dislocate our brains:
IMPORTANT! There are programs in which the field names are incorrectly indicated: for example, old versions of RealVIZ Retimer, Boujou. But 3D Studio Max managed to surpass everyone: starting from the very first version (1998) and up to now (2004), the values of the fields in the Render Settings are mixed up! For ease of perception and presentation, we will act according to common sense. In order not to get confused in puns like "the first second field", I will talk about the first field. dislocation of the brain There is one more absurdity, the explanation of which I cannot find in any way for 10 years already. For all its obvious correctness of using the first field as the dominant one (because that's why it is called "first"), the dominant field in the video material is also... the second one. I don’t know where the ears grow from, but all this often causes non-childish hemorrhoids in users. Especially now, with the active introduction of the DV standard and boards based on it, working with the second field. It becomes even more incomprehensible after realizing that such video cards still convert the signal to the first field at their video output, because our (including the most ancient tube) TVs work with the first field. This is where I find it difficult to explain the logic, but somehow many years ago I came across an article about the history of the DV format. Everyone's "favorite" Bill Gates and his company had a hand in its development, trying to make it the main video format for Windows. And his company is American. And in America, the television standard is NTSC. And his first field is just the second (sorry for the pun). I don’t know if this is true or fiction, but such an explanation may well describe the resulting nonsense. Nonsense obvious and not quite ... Long thought to publish this paragraph or not. In the end, I decided to let it be. I consider it important to teach not only how to do it, but also how not to do it. You can often hear the term "semi-fields". In fact, this term is absurd and it can be translated into Russian as "half-half-frame" (a quarter of a frame or something?). Scrape: one field equals one half-frame. Dialogues also make me laugh. like: - I brought you a video on CD. - Excellent, ta-a-aa... and what is the dominant field in this video? - Both! - ???? !! - Well, to fit all the boards, I made a Full frame! Those. in one video I have both fields first. Choose yourself. or - Dima, give us a video without borders! - Why? Do you have that much respect for your viewers? - We respect, but we conducted tests, reviewed a bunch of videos and came to the conclusion that there is no difference in the image. As experience shows, it is useless to argue here. This is the same as trying to convince a hard-nosed tasker of the stupidity of buying another uncomfortable and life-threatening bucket. This is a clinic. Basics of forming a television image on a television screen The image on the screen of a CRT kinescope is formed from horizontal lines. These lines are drawn by an electron gun that emits a stream of electrons that bombard the kinescope screen covered with phosphor from the inside and make the desired areas glow with the desired color and brightness for some time. Those. this is not the projection of a single assembled picture at a time, as in a filmstrip or a movie, but a very fast drawing of hundreds of lines with a thin beam in a certain order and direction (from top to bottom). In order for the human eye to be able to see the whole image on the screen of a kinescope covered with phosphor, the frequency of changing these pictures must be at least 50 times per second (50 Hz). Reducing this frequency to the usual cinematic 24 k.s. resulted in severe flickering of the image. This is due to the so-called afterglow time of the phosphor, with which the kinescope screen is covered from the inside and thanks to the glow of which we can see the image. Visually, this will look like a constantly pulsing change in the brightness of the image - very similar to the behavior of a fluorescent fluorescent lamp. I hope it is clear what discomfort the viewer will experience in this case. So, it seems to be necessary to send a signal to the TV screen at a frequency of 50 times per second, but in fact, only 25 times are sent to the screen of our TVs and we don’t see any particularly noticeable flickering of brightness. How so?! To do this, you need to understand the principle of screen scanning. Note: All figures given here and below are valid for PAL and SECAM standards. Screen Scan Operation There are only 2 types of television scans (methods for drawing a television image raster with an electron beam):
Progressive (progressive) - image lines are drawn one by one (1,2,3,4,5....625). It is used in special equipment and computer monitors (for example, a computer system unit -> monitor). Each image frame is drawn in one pass (no half frames). The advantage of such a sweep is the simplicity of organizing and processing the signal, and the minus is a strong flickering of brightness at frequencies less than 60 Hz. Probably many have noticed how quickly their eyes get tired when working at a computer monitor with a screen refresh rate of 60 or even 75 Hz. That's right: while the beam passes from the top of the screen to the bottom, the top will have time to noticeably lose its energy charge and begin to go out ... and the whole picture as a whole will begin to flicker. It is for this reason that CRT computer monitors use high frame rates (from 85 to 150 Hz).
Interlaced - here the kinescope beam first draws all the odd lines on the screen. This is followed by the so-called. "reverse stroke" - the beam returns upward to line 2 and continues to draw all the even lines between the already drawn (still glowing from the bombardment of electrons) odd lines and ends its course in the lower right corner of the kinescope in line 624. When these two half-frames are superimposed on top of each other and get a full frame. That. the screen is illuminated twice in one frame and this significantly smoothes out the flickering of the picture as a whole. In other words, with interlaced scanning, you can lower the frame rate by a factor of 2 without much damage to the comfort of perception. Cunningly invented, right? Nnuu...? Have you caught anything yet? These are the same 2 beam passes that make up a single frame and are called "half-frames" or "fields". For those who are especially gifted, I will rephrase: the first half-frame (first field) is lines 1,3,5,7 .... 625, the second half-frame (second field) is lines 2,4,6,8 .... 624. The terms "first" or "second" indicate the dominant field in the video signal, i. from which field the full frame begins to form. If they say that "the video was brought with the first field", this means that each frame in the material begins with the first field (from an odd line). It is clear that interlacing is a must die! It is more complex and difficult to process, it causes a lot of trouble when converting from one field to another, and so on. But nevertheless, all TVs in the world work with it (at least when broadcasting on-air TV programs). A sane person naturally begs the question - since everything is so bad, why does everything remain so? Find the answer below. The history of the appearance of fields It all started in the middle of the 20th century, when television was born and the redistribution of the frequencies of the terrestrial radio range began. The range is far from rubber, there are strict limits on the breadth (number of channels) of its use for different services (police, amateur radio, radio, aviation, taxi, television, etc.), plus restrictions on the element base at that time , with the impossibility of creating microwave receivers and transmitters. In general, even then, the designers understood that the frequency range allocated for television would clearly be small in the near future. I don’t know how much space was specifically allocated for the entire meter TV range, but I know that one television channel, according to calculations, should have occupied a frequency band of about 12 MHz. Processing and transmitting such a wideband signal was difficult and costly. In addition, the number of TV channels that can be squeezed into the range of on-air frequencies allocated for TV broadcasting is being reduced. But it is impossible to sculpt channels close to each other, since mutual interference and parasitic harmonics appear (various doubling / mutual penetration of channels). The engineers puzzled in unison - after all, in this situation, in the future, you and I could watch only 4-5 channels, instead of a couple of dozen. And there was only one way out - to reduce the frequency range occupied by each individual TV channel (the one that is 12 MHz). By reducing the frame rate by 2 times (from 50 to 25) and introducing half frames, it was eventually narrowed down to 6 MHz. And it was an elegant and beautiful solution. Now, fortunately, these problems already seem to be going away and the day is not far off when television broadcasting will switch from analog to digital signal. Then it will be possible to shove thousands of TV channels into the same allotted frequency range, and even with HD resolution, converting them to digital form ... and forget about the fields like a nightmare. I don’t know when this will happen in the “great and mighty”, but a lot of digital TV channels are already broadcast around the world. In the meantime, everything remains the same, we need to understand a couple of conclusions for ourselves: Conclusion1: The main advantage of interlacing over progressive scanning is that with the same image change rate (25 half-frames x 2 passes = required 50Hz per second) and the same number of lines (625 per full frame), the repetition rate of full frames is reduced by 2 times and so the band of terrestrial frequencies occupied by the TV signal has also been reduced by a factor of 2. Conclusion2: For high-quality and comfortable perception of TV pictures by viewers, the video signal supplied to the output of the television transmitter must contain information not only about the number and frequency of frames, but also about half-frames! This can only be achieved if all computer graphics and all video material sent to the air will also contain this information about half-frames. Working without borders, the lamer designer involuntarily shows the viewer a frame rate that is 2 times lower than it is possible to show in reality. Is it really stupid? In fairness, I note that this rule mainly applies to fast-moving elements and camera panoramas. On static plans, the absence of fields will not be noticeable at all, but who plays static frames on television? By the way, all DH works with fields, so look up to the professionals. Computer Boards for Video I/O Almost all non-linear editing boards known to me can capture and output video with fields. The exception is the Miro Video DC1 board, but it is hardly used anywhere, and it worked with 1/4 of the normal TV resolution with a square pixel (384x288), so everything described below does not apply to it. Also, we will not touch on various types of TV tuners with captcha functions and other masterpiece devices costing $10 each and with a standard frame format. Capturing video material occurs either in the video editing program through the input device driver, or using the utilities of the board itself. Further work with the material takes place on the timeline of the video editor and it depends on the project settings whether the output clip will contain fields or not. The input of information through the 1394 interface (FireWire / iLink) has become widespread, but the method of capturing / processing does not change here either. When there was no DV format and boards working in it (the golden era of non-linear editing - the mid-90s), everything was quite simple. The vast majority of boards of that time worked in the MJPEG image compression format and had the first field as the dominant field. Bright representatives of this class: Truevision Targa 1000/2000; Miro Video DC30; Matrox DigiSuite; DPS perception. Then there were practically no problems - videos from studio to studio were transferred in most cases with the first field and the transfer of the material brought into "their own format" was done through Avid MCX Press or Adobe Premiere by stupidly converting it into its own codec. Opponents of such video cards working with the second field were Fast AV Master, Miro Video DC20. Sometimes no no, and they brought a video in their format, and then the brawls began. For those who don't know. You can talk for a long time about what difficulties arose when transferring video material from the board of one group to another. And the matter may turn out to be not only in a different codec, but also in a different resolution, dominant field, size, and frame cropping. Very often, a simple flip of the fields in the most common editing program Adobe Premiere does not solve the problem qualitatively. You need to run heavy artillery like Adobe After Effects to correctly change the margins, change the frame resolution, crop the crop (what idiot still uses it). With the advent of the DV standard, with its second field, it became both worse and better at the same time. Worse - because the park of old boards working with the first field is still extensive and there are no prerequisites for this park to die more or less quickly. Until now, there are many expensive and simply excellent video cards (Truevision Targa, Matrox DigiSuite, DPS Perception, etc.) operating in the MJPEG or Uncompress format, designed specifically for professional use and providing much higher quality and more options than at DV. Why exactly the second field received DV as dominant, I don't know. However, as mentioned above, I happened to hear the opinion that this happened at the suggestion of Microsoft: the Americans quite logically made a new standard for themselves and for their NTSC format. But be that as it may, the whole world still has to clear up this mess. What got better? Unification! Now (2008 - note) the acuteness of the problem is removed: DV is increasingly penetrating into low-budget studios and becoming the de-facto standard, which was S-VHS 10 years ago. In fact, now there is one universal codec - Microsoft-DV; single frame size; single video bitrate; uniform sound settings. In other words, transferring material from one studio to another has become a simple matter that does not require time for conversion and brain strain for video editors. Close-up half frames So, what is it, these half-frames-fields? Let's look in detail.
Above is a frame of video containing fields. Screenshot taken from a computer screen. It is a computer monitor with progressive scan that allows you to see and explore the essence of interlacing. The raised hand of the child has noticeable stripes - these are the television fields. Then why are they visible only on the hand and almost invisible in the rest of the frame (the closet at the back looks especially clean). The answer is both simple and very important. Actually, he is the key to understanding the essence. Ребенок waving his hand quickly. While the kinescope beam was drawing odd lines (it takes him 1/50 of a second, remember?), the hand managed to move a little in space and when drawing the second half-frame, its position is already different. This is how the video was filmed and laid out on the fields by the video camera, and this is exactly how it should be displayed on the TV screen. And there was no movement of objects surrounding the child (except that the camera was shaking a little), which is why there are practically no combs on them. But, such a picture is observed only on a computer monitor that has a progressive scan, but if such a video is displayed on a TV screen, we will not see any stripes, the movement of objects will be smooth, and the objects themselves will be solid. I will try to explain the same thing using animated pictures as an example. For simplicity, I took only 4 lines (2 lines for each field) and 4 frames in total. So, we start moving the square around the screen from left to right. The dominant field in the material is the first.
The same comb. Here you can see how the square breaks into lines when moving, and this happens on the scale of the entire television raster. For one frame, the kinescope beam makes two passes across the screen and the contents of these passes are DIFFERENT (here it is, the key point - unlike a progressive signal!). Each next line, as it were, draws the movement started in the previous line. As a result, a person sees on the screen not an abrupt movement of the square 25 times per second with noticeable jumps, but ... (how to put it ...) sees a smoother ... "flowing" movement consisting of 50 phases, which is perceived as smooth movement. Here is such a pure optical illusion.
And now consider the option without margins. This animation shows that the square moves in the same time intervals entirely and discretely: it was here, and now it is in another place - in jumps. And no transitional phases for you, no splitting into lines. And having moved to a new place, he stupidly stands there for 1/25 of a second. But with interlaced rendering, he would stand motionless "in one position" for only 1/50 of a second. It is for these reasons that when we see a dynamic picture without borders on the TV screen, we say: "The image of something is strobe." And if such a movement is in no way stylized as a movie by blurring moving objects or mixing adjacent frames (blending), then the viewer will see an unpleasant strobe. What has just been said is clearly demonstrated by a photo shoot of a square moving quickly from left to right across the TV screen, made with a long exposure. The discreteness of moving the square across the screen is clearly visible.
In the photo, the movement consists of small movements - first one field is drawn in 1/50 of a second, and then the second one is drawn in the same time. The square during this time already has time to shift to the right.
In the photo for the same time, the square makes only one big jump lasting 1/25 of a second, and the second 1/25 of a second it stupidly stands. From here, a strobe is visible to the eye. Work with video and computer graphics There are no particular differences in using both of these data types as sources. But there are differences in the nature of their appearance. In the captured video, the fields are generated by the cameras themselves, regardless of the desires and knowledge of the operator, but we will have to introduce them into computer graphics ourselves. And then in the most rigid way to monitor so that in the process of work the fields do not disappear anywhere. IMPORTANT! It is necessary to monitor the presence of margins while working on a video at all stages of its production. All sources for assembling a clip must contain fields. You can often hear: "I've counted the blank in 3DSMax without fields, but in After Effects I turned on the fields when rendering." Rave. It is enough to lose the fields at least once in the chain and you will not fully restore them anymore. Get it on your nose! By the way, the need for this constant control is probably the most common factor in the reluctance to work with fields: some comrades are simply lazy to mess around with them. I agree with them, because it is much more pleasant to climb porn sites, smoke and drink coffee. To sweeten the pill a little, I can recommend that all programs follow the same sequence of fields, so that later they do not have to convert and interpret them correctly during assembly. The advice, for all its banality, is not as obvious to many as it seems at first glance. There are still nuances for setting up some software for rendering. For example, the first versions of the Maya 3D editor did not work with half-frames at all. And often, in order to render graphics with fields in a 3D editor, including the banal "Used fields" in render settings may not be enough. For example, XNUMXDSMax still requires their correct configuration in Preference Settings/Rendering/Field Order - here you have to choose Odd or Even. Difficulties, problems and glitches Working with fields constantly confronts the composer with many difficulties. This includes incorrect interpretation of the dominant field by programs, and incompatibility problems with some plugins / filters, and, for example, render time increased by almost 2 times in After Effects, etc. This is the fee that you have to pay for a high-quality smooth picture at the end of the work. However, almost all of these problems are solvable. But in order to solve them, it is necessary to approach the problem logically. I have ICQ with boring constancy throwing out messages like: "I rendered in 3DSMax with fields, then I processed it with fields in After Effects, uploaded photos and videos, then compressed it into MPEG2 with the TMPGEnc program, then I authored it in Ulead DVD-Factory and I have Something is strobe on the DVD player." Sometimes one wants to ask such figures why they didn’t complicate the technical process even more and with what kind of extrasensory method I should find a glitch among this heap of clamping / encoding / recompressing. It is worth starting to investigate any bug by shortening the chain as much as possible and simplifying the project. No effects, no plug-ins, no transformations and deformations, no codecs and compressions: we took the source material, threw it on the timeline of our favorite video editor and displayed the image on the TV. If there is no video output board for direct control, then use any simple "one-button" program for encoding and recording to DVD-video. If the problem persists, check out the source. If there are no problems, then start adding 1-2 "bells and whistles" with the obligatory follow-up control, connect the compositing program. From simple to complex - the only way you can "find a bad tooth." Particular attention should also be paid to the identification of a glitch - what exactly is buggy? If only some separate element introduced into the program from the outside is buggy (for example, a sequence from a 3D program), then there is either an incorrect miscalculation of it when outputting from a 3D editor or its incorrect interpretation in the compositing / editing program. The following are typical traps for beginners and how to solve them. You have counted the graphics from the 3D editor into a sequence, loaded it into the composer, processed it, added titles, effects, etc. And the test render gave a comb on the TV monitor. Crap? Sure... and you're just in a panic. To fix a bug, you need to figure out where it came from. There are usually three options, I list: 1. Incorrect setting of the output format of the fields in the 3D editor (for example, your board works with the first field, and counted the three-dimensional with the second). It is easy to check for lice - you need to put the sequence clearly in the center of the composition window and without applying any effects and transformations, having calculated it, look again at the TV monitor. If the sausage has disappeared, then the effects or the transformation in the composer are to blame. If it remains, then your source turned out to be with a dominant field unsuitable for the board and this needs to be treated. It is treated in two ways: either recalculate in the 3D editor by turning its settings, or "head on" tell the composer which field in this sequence is the first (settings for Adobe After Effects are given here). By the way, there is also an unspoken third way - to shift the entire sequence vertically by 1 pixel in the composition window. True, this case is suitable if no further perversions of the material are foreseen and you just need to display naked three-dimensional on the TV. 2. Field collisions occurred due to a change in the scale, deformation or position of the sequence. Roughly speaking - from moving around the screen, the input fields got confused. It is also easy to detect - you need to turn off all effects and force the composer to indicate which field in this sequence is the first. In Adobe After Effects, this is done by pressing Ctrl+F on the buggy sequence in the Project window. In the Separate Fields section, select the one you need, and then in the process of work, the program itself will quite competently interpret the fields. 3. You counted a clip with a dominant field that your video card does not understand. It is treated by changing the output file format settings in the Render Settings of the program before rendering the composition. Change the value of the Field Render item. Borderless work There are many situations where working with fields can be redundant, impossible, or even harmful. First example - work with source code captured on film. Indeed, why use fields when working with material in which they were not originally there. On film, all objects dynamically moving in the frame do not have clear boundaries - there is a so-called. natural blurring of the image (tail) due to the relatively long shutter speed of the movie camera when shooting (picture on the left). I think you yourself have noticed this difference in images between a movie in a cinema and some kind of TV show or TV program filmed on video.
But on the other hand, computer graphics that are mixed into this film material during editing should be calculated without margins and in such a way that their appearance, if possible, does not differ from the cine blurred source. This is achieved in many ways, such as applying motion blur to dynamic objects. Thus, computer objects also acquire blur when moving and look very harmonious in the frame (picture on the right). If this is not done, then such graphic elements will strobe when rendering without margins, or vice versa, they will become sterile-smooth-even if the roller with margins is calculated. In both cases, such graphics in the clip will look alien. A video made using this technology can be counted without borders and it will look equally good both on a TV screen and on a computer monitor.
Second example - when compositing involves a lot and it is difficult to work with sequences prepared in advance. These are various kinds of transformations, deformations, changes in playback speed, etc. Overly complex changes to material containing margins can end up (much more often than you think) causing all sorts of problems like flickering, ripples, pulsing, etc. The situation is further aggravated by the use of various plug-ins in the work. Sometimes there are such glitches that you wonder and this is due to the fact that too many technologies do not know how to correctly interpret (understand) the values of the fields in the source code. Fortunately, there is a cure for this scourge. You just need to prepare all the sequences calculated for future use without borders, but with a frame rate of not 25 per second, but 50 and higher. Then in the composer it will be necessary to increase the playback speed of this sequence to 200% or higher accordingly. Thus, we get a source without margins, but with an excessive frame rate. In the final assembly after rendering, we will still get material with fields, because there was an excess of initial data in such sequences and the editor will be able to split the already calculated information into half-frames at 25 fps. Note: I try to basically work this way, despite the fact that rendering graphics in a 3D editor with a frame rate of 50 instead of 25 often takes 2 times longer. Third example - you need to make a video for broadcasting not on TV, but for viewing on the screen of a computer monitor, a commercial for a cinema or an LED advertising panel. If the material is with fields, then the viewer will see stripes, because the video adapters of these devices work in progressive scan and the concept of a half-frame is unknown to them. (Although some Matrox VGA adapters still have the ability to work with fields, so they don't care what material to play). Fourth example - you make a static intro, for example, an ad consisting of 1 picture. There is absolutely no need to count it with fields, because there is no movement there. But to be honest, this is a very dubious example, because the video editor is usually configured once and switching its settings every time for the sake of a miserable ad is unlikely to be appropriate. And there is still a completely non-trivial task - stylization of video material as a movie. Let's say you made a cool scripted advertising spot and want to hide from viewers (and from competitors) that it was filmed on some kind of DVCAM. Or maybe the video is supposed to be like a movie. So puzzle over how to remove the fields, but at the same time not get a strobing picture. Theoretically, there are many options for solving this problem - for these purposes, special plug-ins are used that analyze the material with fields, remove them, and instead of fields, blur on moving objects. True, knowledgeable specialists say that there is still no full-fledged version, some strange glitches sometimes appear. I can’t comment on this somehow, due to the lack of knowledge on these technologies. Transfer of material to other studios and editing stations "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you," says the proverb. Unfortunately, most computer editor-designers put you-know-what on it. True, it is worth noting that this is mainly the region's sufferers: self-taught and homemade covens. It is so deep violet that the material that they give to the Customer should be read without problems at the studio where this Customer subsequently applies. The disc after them usually looks like a blank disc, at best, "AVI Advertisement" is scrawled right on it in clumsy handwriting. But the contents of these discs can be in the most fantastic formats, both in terms of codecs and data format: from 4: 2: 0 formats such as MPEG1 / 2, XviD or DivX that are not intended for post-processing and recalculation, and ending with some kind of disk images, which must be mounted into the system by installing the left drivers and controllers. Naturally, the clowns do not attach any drivers or codecs used. Solving such charades usually takes place on Friday at the end of the working day in the "urgent!" mode. The funny thing is that they, having received a similar disk with someone else's video, curse the character who made it with a three-story obscenity. At the same time, everything remains the same - none of the parties draws conclusions from their own and other people's mistakes. But the material that Moscow studios transmit to the regions in 99% contains all the necessary accompanying text information about the source, and a lot of questions are automatically removed when converted to the desired format. I think it would be superfluous to mention a high-quality and generally accepted data format in such cases. Without touching much now on the issues of frame size (resolution) and codec types (there is generally a swamp here), I will try to formulate the key points that need to be addressed when preparation of the video for transfer to the Customer:
The best option is a video pre-converted to a sequence of frames and an attached uncompressed WAV file. Such material will be easily understood by any editing program without any diviks and sorensons. However, there is a chance to run into an alien who illiterately puts it all to the heap and he will have problems that come back to haunt you. Unfortunately, the number of such aliens is now growing exponentially - the widespread use of software, the need to use an I / O video card, the mass of lamer literature, etc. affect. That's why I switched from sequences to uncompressed video - there's nothing to collect here. Well, the ideal option is to find out from the Customer the requirements for the output format of the video. It’s better to prepare it yourself in the right form than to fight in hysterics later, having learned that some idiot got to the quality material and he broadcast it incorrectly by converting it. Believe me, the Customer will consider both of you fools: an idiot - because he could not broadcast his advertisement correctly, and you - because the idiot will say that it was YOU who gave the material in some strange format. And of course, the disc with the finished material must be provided with detailed textual accompaniment. Indicate there the name of the work, its duration, frame resolution, type of video and audio codecs, the dominant field. Attach preview 320x240 in MPEG1 format. Conclusion Uff, everything seems to be ... and not everything. The article will never be completed. It is always open for clarification, change and editing, so if you have something to add, then please contact. I hope I didn't bore you too much with this flow of information. Remember, while we are making and using television that works with half-frames, then the material for it needs to be prepared appropriately. It's time to end this illiteracy and stop broadcasting strobing naked computer graphics and flattering yourself with statements that you are stylizing video material like a movie in this way. Thanks for helping me write I really think this article is very valuable for many reasons. Firstly, almost everything described here was given to me through stuffing bumps. Secondly, there is practically no material on this aspect in Runet, just as there is no paper literature. Thirdly, I am glad that I finally shared my knowledge of television, obtained when receiving the specialty "master of repair of television and radio equipment." During my acquaintance with the fields (1998), so many people helped me in mastering this disgrace that it’s hard to remember everyone. But I'll try. So, thanks to Vladimir Ostapchenko and Andrey Klimenko, who for the first time poked me with their noses into the fields. Thanks to Alexander Menkov and Ingvar for their help in deepening the mechanics of working with fields in Adobe After Effects. Special thanks to Silent for getting to know the basics and methods of working with film material. Special thanks to Yuri Speransky for the illustrations for the article. And yet, oddly enough, I want to thank all the lamers working without borders. Indeed, without their stupid conclusions and obstinacy in their exclusivity, this article would not have appeared. Author: Dmitry Khodakov; Publication: mabuk.ru
▪ Lighting tips for the operator ▪ How to take a good photo of a child ▪ Learning to shoot video - tips for beginners
Artificial leather for touch emulation
15.04.2024 Petgugu Global cat litter
15.04.2024 The attractiveness of caring men
14.04.2024
▪ Intel will teach TVs to recognize people ▪ Prototype bionic eye 3D printed ▪ Skin graft without scars and scars ▪ Tourism is the main cause of a possible environmental disaster
▪ section of the site Consumer Electronics. Selection of articles ▪ article How are synthetic fibers made? Detailed answer ▪ article Work on copiers. Standard instruction on labor protection
Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews
www.diagram.com.ua |
We recommend interesting articles Section 
See other articles Section 
Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:
All languages of this page