Not that it matters in relation to your question, as either way of describing the frame rate produces the same frame duration when muxing with MKVMergeGUI. Is 24000/1001 really supposed to be a more accurate way of describing 23.976 video or just an alternative method? Because according to the math it produces a frame duration of 41.7083333333ms which isn't quite the same as 23.976fps. according to ffdshow an AVI remuxed with a frame rate of 23.976 using VurtualDubMod has a frame duration of 41.708ms, while the same video remuxed using VirtualDub had 3 out of 4 frames with a duration of 41.7084ms while the 4th's frame duration was 41.7083ms, giving an average frame duration of 41.708375ms.Īccording to my calculations the real frame duration for 23.976fps video is 41.708375ms so VirtualDub seems to win in the accuracy department. Either method should produce the same result (I used a 25fps video stream for testing to be sure MKVMergeGUI was changing the frame rate each time).Īs a side note. Using either method to remux the video stream using MKVMergeGUI, ffdshow displayed the frame duration as being 41.7083ms, so I'd assume the answer to your question is "no". It seems to be the best way to determine if there's any differences in frame rate, as programs such as MediaInfo seem to "round" the frame rates a little when supplying that info. Well for fun I just extracted and then remuxed a raw x264 video stream using both methods, and played each with ffdshow doing the decoding while using ffdshow's on screen display to show the frame duration.
0 kommentar(er)
