Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmeyer
There is absolutely nothing evil or wrong about interlacing. It works great, and has been in use for longer than most people on this planet have been alive. It is still used today, and you watch interlaced TV all the time, and it looks wonderful.
|
If it works great for you, cool. I hardly even watch TV, much less interlaced TV, but on the rare occasion I do switch on my television set, I'm greeted with Moiré and shimmer, thanks to interlacing.
My objection isn't so much to deinterlacing (which is a restorative step) as it is to interlacing (which is a destructive step). Without interlacing, deinterlacing wouldn't be necessary. I think I've read papers showing that interlacing doesn't actually save bandwidth when lossy compression is used, but I can't find a link and it's apparently very difficult to search for this because all I get are descriptions of H.264 instead, so maybe I'm misremembering.
Maybe I should conduct some tests of my own when I'm feeling less lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmeyer
Some people don't like the solution because it is interlaced (see my comments above) and also because they don't like the effect of pulldown (repeated fields). However, having tried all the other alternatives to pulldown, and since I deal with film transfers every day of my life, it is my opinion that this gives you the best-looking, sharpest results, and without any problems that you get doing speed changes or de-interlacing using motion estimation, bobbing, etc.
|
I dislike this not because it's interlaced or because it's pulldown; I dislike this because it's unnecessary munging of the video. Maybe use something a bit less ancient than DVDs, like H.264 in Matroska with literally any frame rate you want, and you don't even have to do any destructive operation to your video (other than the lossy compression). Otoh, if you do need it to be a DVD for whatever reason, I second johnmeyer's suggestion.
feisty2: Don't cut yourself on that edge, bud.