Possible to author Blu-Ray with 480p 59.94 frames per second H.264 video?

[usually_quiet]

A discussion arose in another thread about 480p video and Blu-Ray. As I understand it, 480p 59.94 frames per second H.264 video would need to be re-encoded to be Blu-Ray compliant before authoring because Blu-Ray doesn't support 480p, only 480i. Another party in the discussion claimed there are authoring tricks that can make 480p 59.94 frames per second H.264 video playable from an authored Blu-Ray disc. Which is correct?

[poisondeathray]

Not possible

The "authoring trick" is you would have to to upscale to 720p59.94

[usually_quiet]

Exactly as I thought. Thanks.

[LMotlow]

[jagabo already answered].

Nope. Wrong on that. Poisondeathray already answered.

[jman98]

Well, this is WAY out of my area of expertise, but those who know a lot about H.264 encoding have said that it's possible to encode and produce progressive frames but have them flagged as interlaced for this kind of thing. Honestly, the people who wrote the BD specs were nuts on 480/576 video and the supposed requirement for double frame rate AND interlaced video just boggles the mind. What exactly was the reason for that? Except for requiring you to re-sample the audio, DVD's spec was written so that VCDs were valid for DVD. Why couldn't they have just left DVD compliant video as acceptable for BluRay authoring?

tsmuxer is a bit more flexible about the requirements. I've got a few BluRays I've made with it that have 24 fps 480p video and they play fine on my BluRay players. I really could not care less about whether they are out of spec or not. They work, my standalone players play them and my PC can play them too.

[poisondeathray]

...it's possible to encode and produce progressive frames but have them flagged as interlaced for this kind of thing.

Yes "flagging" is possible - but that is used for a different case. That is more commonly used for 1080p29.97, or 1080p25 content for BD (neither isn't allowed, strictly speaking) . That's just making it "look legit", even though the content and encoding are progressive, it "looks" interlaced to the authoring application and BD player. But interlaced 59.94 frames per second at SD resolution , or 119.88 field/s) is never allowed for anything that follows standards, not even the next gen BD - the reason is backwards compatibility with DVD)

Why couldn't they have just left DVD compliant video as acceptable for BluRay authoring?

It is legal as-is. Perfectly backwards compatible. 480p59.94 fields/s is perfectly legal for DVD & BD. He's asking for 480p59.94 frames/s . (or 119.88 fields/s). That's NOT legal for DVD either

tsmuxer is a bit more flexible about the requirements. I've got a few BluRays I've made with it that have 24 fps 480p video and they play fine on my BluRay players. I really could not care less about whether they are out of spec or not. They work, my standalone players play them and my PC can play them too.

480p23.976 is legal for SD BD, if it has pulldown (the signal is 29.97 frames per second, 59.94 fields per second, just like it is legal on DVD)

[newpball]

But interlaced 59.94 frames per second, or 119.88 field/s) is never allowed for anything that follow standards, not even the next gen BD

Sometimes good things come from standards as well!

[poisondeathray]

But interlaced 59.94 frames per second, or 119.88 field/s) is never allowed for anything that follow standards, not even the next gen BD

Sometimes good things come from standards as well!

You're going to hate this, but "interlace" was supposed to be completely eliminated originally in the HEVC early drafts, but there are ways to support interlaced encoding now. It's back. Officially.

[newpball]

But interlaced 59.94 frames per second, or 119.88 field/s) is never allowed for anything that follow standards, not even the next gen BD

Sometimes good things come from standards as well!

You're going to hate this, but "interlace" was supposed to be completely eliminated originally in the HEVC early drafts, but there are ways to support interlaced encoding now. It's back. Officially.

Why am I not surprised.

The usual suspects must have lobbied to get it back in.

[usually_quiet]

jagabo already answered.

Where?

[LMotlow]

It was poisondeathray. Viewing one thread on a laptop, this thread on a PC at the same time. My bad.