Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: video capture question

Robert Carlson wrote:

-----cut
However, for motion, I found my digital video
camera and IEEE 1394 board recorded a 720X480 image size, but this included
both fields in each frame. For faster motion, the two fields are quite
noticeable when you are viewing individual frames for analysis and I needed
to reduce the image to 360X240 to get rid of one field.

This is a real problem with DV systems. Ironically the problem is that
new systems have this problem precisely because they are capable of
recording all the information in the video. Older systems just threw
away one field.

We have an alpha of a new version (2.0) of our homegrown software called
PhysVis in use in our labs that deinterlaces the images by throwing away
a field and then averaging what is left to maintain the right aspect
ratio. But the process is slow, taking over 1 sec per frame on a 550MHz
processor, long enough to be annoying.

The Canon Optura (and other camcorders I'm sure) has a feature called
"progressive scan video". The video recorded in this mode does not have
these interlacing artifacts. I suspect this feature will become more
popular with time.

Tim Sullivan
sullivan@kenyon.edu