<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">What part makes sense?<br><br>If you're wondering why 37 > mvrange, that might be because mvrange isn't
<br>strictly enforced. I do strictly enforce the limits of the standard<br>(2048 horizontal, 512 vertical), but any smaller mvrange is regarded only<br>as a suggestion, and various mv refinement procedures may extend several
<br>pixels beyond the nominal range.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This part made sense allready. What I did not expect was legal motion vectors of ranges up to 500. But you explained how this 'drifting' can happen, and now I understand. Thank you Loren!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>By the way, I checked the standard on the limits on the motion vectors and I found that the horizontal motion vector range is limited to [-2048,2047,75] luma samples. However the vertical motion vector limit depends on the level (Table
A.1 of the standard) and can be 64, 128, 256, or 512. I assume x264 obeys these limits?</div>
<div><br>The remarks of Peter makes sense to me. When analyzing movies and finding these large motion vectors, I did not see any 'pictural' reason for these large vectors. It would be worthwhile investigating the idea of Peter of preventing drifting. However, this is where it stops for me. I am desinging multimedia processors and I found out that I have to count on large motion vectors any time.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanx again</div>
<div>Cor<br> </div>