I don't understand. I've already said that the second sample was deinterlaced. Here are quotations from 2 earlier posts:
And once again, it's quite possible, and it's often done, to take progressive content (your deinterlaced video) and to encode it, broadcast it, and capture it, as interlaced. There's no contradiction there. It's what happened with your second sample. Rather than each field being from 2 separate points in time as is true with real interlaced video, here both fields are from the same point in time. No big deal. Interlaced encoding does not necessarily imply an interlaced source.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 35 of 35
Thread
-
-
I was referring to this:
The only difference is that your cables by definition always cap as interlaced and I'm also saying that it was really encoded and broadcast as interlaced.
And once again, it's quite possible, and it's often done, to take progressive content (your deinterlaced video) and to encode it, broadcast it, and capture it, as interlaced. There's no contradiction there. It's what happened with your second sample. Rather than each field being from 2 separate points in time as is true with real interlaced video, here both fields are from the same point in time. No big deal.
- I know for a fact that the master DV-encoded video on WWE's archival server in Stamford, Connecticut, USA (digitized for them by a Japanese archival company that I forget the name of) is interlaced and supposed to be kept interlaced throughout the production chain from the master to the finished product to be sent to cable companies.
- At some point in producing the on demand version of the programs, most of the videos shown on the service in January and February so far became progressive scan, causing the video to look jerky.
- That would have to involve deinterlacing, wouldn't it? -
-
I know that progressive content can be encoded and broadcast as interlaced. I don't know why you think I don't. The point is that they made a mistake at whatever point that the interlaced source footage was deinterlaced and encoded as progressive and that's why people were having problems with the picture quality. The footage that looked "right" was always interlaced, which is the right thing to do, as the original master source footage is interlaced and all of the proper functioning footage in the 5+ years that the service has existed was kept interlaced at every step. The footage that looked wrong was deinterlaced at some point by mistake, and it's clearly a mistake and not a intentional visual choice because it's not on every show, including a two part show (a single card/event divided into two VOD programs labeled as Part 1 and Part 2) that has one part which is fully interlaced and one that was deinterlaced to progressive at some point.
Similar Threads
-
PAL to NTSC, NTSC to PAL framerate conversion?
By Baldrick in forum Video ConversionReplies: 44Last Post: 5th Dec 2009, 23:31 -
Syncing Audio CD to Video of Concert (with possible PAL>NTSC conversion)
By ehmjay in forum MacReplies: 3Last Post: 7th Jul 2009, 21:31 -
Subtitles and NTSC -> PAL Video Conversion ?
By shotokan101 in forum SubtitleReplies: 14Last Post: 5th Jan 2009, 20:39 -
Video is Jerky after NTSC DVD to PAL VCD Conversion.
By milindb1 in forum Video ConversionReplies: 14Last Post: 10th Sep 2008, 02:22 -
NTSC to PAL, PAL to NTSC framerate conversion?
By Baldrick in forum Video ConversionReplies: 23Last Post: 23rd Apr 2008, 11:19