Page 1 of 1
vertical resize window for 640x240
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:42 pm
by Kushnirenko
After reading issues about deinterlacing I found that a very simple solution is to set 640x240 size to record images. Then you stretch it vertically by a factor of 2 and get 640x480 resized image and you do not have any interlacing effects (with lower resolution of course)
Is it possible to to add an option (pull down menu with different sizes) to stretch window vertically? I wrote a simple PHP page to do that, but just was curious if that may be useful for the others.
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:53 pm
by Lee Sharp
That would be handy... Specifically storing 648x240 images but displaying 640x480. Max resolution and max disk space.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:11 am
by lethal
I'd just like to bump this for more input.
Surely this would get a greater horizontal detail out of interlaced cameras. Obviously when scaling the captured picture up from 640x240 to 640x480 (or 720x288 to 720x576) for display, you would be stretching the pixels vertically to twice their captured size but there would still be 640/720 captured pixels horizontally.
Would this give a genuinely more detailed image while getting around the deinterlacing problem?
I'm not the programming buff but I'd assume this to be a fairly straight forward thing to implement.
Re: vertical resize window for 640x240
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:39 am
by robi
Kushnirenko wrote:After reading issues about deinterlacing I found that a very simple solution is to set 640x240 size to record images. Then you stretch it vertically by a factor of 2 and get 640x480 resized image and you do not have any interlacing effects (with lower resolution of course)
Is it possible to to add an option (pull down menu with different sizes) to stretch window vertically? I wrote a simple PHP page to do that, but just was curious if that may be useful for the others.
Nice idea! 720x288 to 720x576 would give full-size, actually.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:22 pm
by zoneminder
Video 4 Linux 2 which I am currently implementing allows you to specify whether to use interlaced images or just single frames so this would be a better fit in that version. I would suggest that the images may as well be stored as 640x240 right up until it is viewed where it can be stretched without wasting disk space or bandwidth.