NTSC video with a film-like/PAL to NTSC conversion type of look that shouldn't

[manono]

You haven't explained why you think there wasn't any deinterlacing in the entire chain of events,?

I don't understand. I've already said that the second sample was deinterlaced. Here are quotations from 2 earlier posts:

It's just deinterlaced NTSC video from some kind of analog source

...then the difference is that the 2nd sample has deinterlaced and progressive content

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.

[manono]

Double post

[Bix]

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 then by your last statement...

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.

...you still don't understand what I'm saying:

- 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?

[manono]

- That would have to involve deinterlacing, wouldn't it?

Yeah, so? Can someone else please explain to him how progressive content can be encoded and broadcast as interlaced? He seems to have some sort of mental block about anything I say.

[Bix]

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.