Ich habe folgendes geschrieben:
Read sometimes the 2nd contribution
Since you're capturing NTSC you should use field treshold of 240 lines, 288 is for PAL.
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/2...-about-huffyuv
Als Antwort erhielt ich dann Folgendes:
Again, changing it from 288 to 240 is unnecessary. The original author of Huffyuv (and Avisynth!!) is no dummy. I personally would call him a genius and a video/programming expert. Plus he is American, or at least went to university in the USA (NTSC country).
Do you really think he would hardcode a threshold that was wrong for NTSC, and never correct this supposed error?
A capture with a height of 480 will be compressed the same way whether the Field Threshold is set to 240, 288, or any other value from 0-479 (or 1-479 if 0 isn't allowed).
Just look at the math, not someone's forum post.
If (Height > Field Threshold) then {Interlaced Mode}
Field Threshold = 288
240 > 288 = false
288 > 288 = false
480 > 288 = true
576 > 288 = true
Field Threshold = 240
240 > 240 = false
288 > 240 = true
480 > 240 = true
576 > 240 = true
Changing the threshold to 240 causes single-field PAL to be encoded in interlaced mode, worsening compression. More importantly, it breaks backwards compatibility with the original unpatched Huffyuv and any derivations that don't implement this feature originated by the CCE-SP patch. Besides these two downsides, changing the threshold from 288 to 240 makes no difference for these four standard resolutions. There is no advantage.
Is this any clearer...? I'm hoping math is more universal than English.
P.S. Typing this on my phone was incredibly frustrating.
----------------------------
Frage..bin ich auf dem Holzweg ?