Deinterlace 1080i60 or encode as interlaced?

[AnXioZ]

Hello,

I have been researching for a couple of days for the best way to archive my BluRay which is encoded in 1080i 60 (fileds/second) and plays back on my computer at 60 frames/second.

I want to keep the motion resolution at 60 frames/second so I was wondering what is the best option in this scenario.

So far I've boiled it down to:

1) Deinterlace using QTGMC
- Pros:
* Best possible deinterlace result.
* Better encoding due to video now being deinterlaced.

- Cons:
* Doubled number of frames => Increased file size
* Problematic playback since video is 1080p60 ?
* Increased encoding time

2) Encode as interlaced / Deinterlace during playback
- Pros:
* Keep number of rames => No increase in file size
* No problems in playback since video is still 1080i60

-Cons:
* Deinterlace during playback means not as good results as deinterlacing the video during encoding.
* Slower playback of complicated deinterlacing used?
* Not as good x264 encoding results as progressive content.

I apologies for any mistakes in my vocabulary.

What would you guys suggest in this situation?

Thank you in advance. :thanks:

[Sharc]

If your source is truly interlaced 1920x1080 material and you want to stay blu-ray compliant and keep the time resolution, I would encode this as interlaced, because 60fps (actually 59.94) progressive is compliant at 1280x720 resolution only, but not at 1920x1080.
Real-time deinterlacers are quite good these days, and I would prefer it over deinterlacing to 29.97 progressive and applying "--fake-interlaced", or frame rate conversion to 23.976 or 24.000 progressive.
This is just my personal preference. There will surely be other opinions on this subject.

[kieranrk]

Personally I would rather have world class deinterlacing at 720p60 than crappy deinterlacing at 1080i60.

[poisondeathray]

the best way to archive my BluRay which is encoded in 1080i 60

if you're archiving a BD

option 3) rip as ISO and store on HDD
-pros: cheap media, multiple redundancy easy to do, faster than either method 1 or 2 above, lossless

unless you didn't really mean "archive"? archive usually implies original quality

[WorBry]

One of the main points about encoding x264 interlaced, is that it is inherantly much less efficient than encoding progressive.

In my experience, (pure interlaced) 50i/60i sources and their (bob-deinterlaced) 50p/60p products, result in similar bitrates/file sizes when encoded at the same Constant Quality i.e. interlaced encoding is around 50% less efficient.

So, the notion of 'no increase in file size' is really not the case.

[Sharc]

Personally I would rather have world class deinterlacing at 720p60 than crappy deinterlacing at 1080i60.
Hmmm, sure if you compare world-class deinterlacers with crappy on-the-fly ones and assume that you hardly loose visible resolution at 720p (true for many blu-ray movies and TV sets).
What if one wants to keep the original 1920x1080 resolution? Would you suggest "same rate" (29.97 fps) world-class deinterlacing with --fake-interlaced?
I think that only tests with the source can tell.