VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and copy Ultra HD Blu-rays and DVDs! Or rip iTunes movies and music! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 68 of 68
Thread
  1. Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
    Perhaps a bit off topic, but once we are at it:
    Does anybody know how today's TVs or HW deinterlacers process one field phase-shifted "interlaced" video? Do they match the fields and hence restore the original progressive frames perfectly, or do they deinterlace it (producing unavoidable artefacts)?
    Most of modern reputable brands TV's are equipped with some form of motion detection so they should be able to deal with odd cases (but not always without issues). And TV's usually don't know flag (i mean by this that multimedia and TV reception functions are usually processed in different circuit than video thus video processor almost always perform blind deinterlacing). It is mandatory to have motion detection in all framerate converting TV's (and many of them are in fact asynchronous internally with fixed refresh rate when compared to incoming video). IMHO Better brands trying almost everything in approach toward good deinterlacing.
    (and they are quite good, can observe SD interlace on very old LG TV, and interlace they can be seen only in very fast motion areas with relatively low contrast like light gray on white - then some lines can be visible but on limited area - this LG TV is at least 6 years old and modern TV should be way better).
    Thank you. Apparently one has to try what exactly the TV etc. does with interlaced footage - especially with "odd cases". The magic depends on the manufacturer, but I agree that deinterlacers are darn good nowadays, driven by interlaced HDTV broadcast . In DVD player times it was possible to draw conclusions on the processing based on few commonly used chip sets.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
    Thank you. Apparently one has to try what exactly the TV etc. does with interlaced footage - especially with "odd cases". The magic depends on the manufacturer, but I agree that deinterlacers are darn good nowadays, driven by interlaced HDTV broadcast . In DVD player times it was possible to draw conclusions on the processing based on few commonly used chip sets.
    Once again - DVD player is Source, TV is receiver (display) as such they operate on different signal. DVD use "flags" where TV use only incoming signal usually blindly (as some video interfaces don't carry explicit field flag).
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
    Thank you. Apparently one has to try what exactly the TV etc. does with interlaced footage - especially with "odd cases". The magic depends on the manufacturer, but I agree that deinterlacers are darn good nowadays, driven by interlaced HDTV broadcast . In DVD player times it was possible to draw conclusions on the processing based on few commonly used chip sets.
    Once again - DVD player is Source, TV is receiver (display) as such they operate on different signal. DVD use "flags" where TV use only incoming signal usually blindly (as some video interfaces don't carry explicit field flag).
    Ok, thanks. Got it
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by johnmeyer View Post
    Originally Posted by Bernix View Post
    Understand properly, that movie recorded as progressive (or simpler on classical film) then translated as interlaced, has each field from different time ?
    Have to think twice next time
    Not quite. A 24 fps movie is translated to 30 fps video by adding pulldown fields. These are simply duplicates of existing fields.
    OP is in Europe - that doesn't apply there. Europe is 50Hz country. There, the film is sped up from 24fps to 25 fps and every two successive fields scan the same frame. In that instance, deinterlacing is not even necessary, but, if you had to deinterlace (e.g. because you want progressive video file), it does not degrade the video quality at all, as another poster said above so vehemently, since there is no temporal change in the image data between the 2 fields.

    In summary, OP, if you are transferring material that originated on film, you can safely deinterlace from 50i to 25p and your quality will not suffer. Bonus points for restoring the frame rate from 25fps to the film's native 24fps
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by briantw View Post
    in Europe - that doesn't apply there. Europe is 50Hz country. There, the film is sped up from 24fps to 25 fps and every two successive fields scan the same frame.
    Not always. There are many different ways film gets to PAL video. And hence, many different ways of restoring it to the original film frames.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Scharfis_Brain - Exotic Interlacing (Exotisches Interlacing) is a nice read about strange NTSC->PAL conversions,..
    users currently on my ignore list: deadrats, Stears555
    Quote Quote  
  7. The OP posted 2.5 years ago. Exactly what was the point of resurrecting this finished thread???

    As jagabo points out, not all 24 fps film to 25 fps PAL conversions were just straightforward speed ups.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by briantw View Post
    Europe is 50Hz country. There, the film is sped up from 24fps to 25 fps...
    Not always.
    Originally Posted by briantw View Post
    ...and every two successive fields scan the same frame
    Not always.
    Originally Posted by briantw View Post
    ...but, if you had to deinterlace (e.g. because you want progressive video file), it does not degrade the video quality at all
    That's just plain wrong. Deinterlacing always degrades a video, even if it's already progressive.
    Originally Posted by briantw View Post
    Bonus points for restoring the frame rate from 25fps to the film's native 24fps
    That's about the only thing you said with which I agree. Did you sign up here and resurrect a dead thread just to post misleading claims?
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads