Bob() filter chatter

[Katie Boundary]

I just made my first 60fps encode from natively 60i content run through the Bob() filter.

The results are VERY PRETTY.

This is definitely how I'm doing the rest of my encodes for Andromeda, Batman Beyond, Birds of Prey, Carmen Sandiego, ER, and all those other shows that hello_hello thinks don't exist.

[QBhd]

Hmm... as far as I know (and I may be wrong) TV shows are not natively "60i". I know they are broadcast in North America as NTSC, but they are natively film or hybrid film (hybrid for special effects that sometimes are done at 30fps)... So if you like the soap opera look of native 24 fps content that has been changed to 60fps, then by all means go for it... to each their own. I would never do such things to my TV content

QB

[Katie Boundary]

Hmm... as far as I know (and I may be wrong) TV shows are not natively "60i". I know they are broadcast in North America as NTSC, but they are natively film or hybrid film (hybrid for special effects that sometimes are done at 30fps)...

MOST content is done as film and telecined up to NTSC specs. SOME content is done at 30 progressive frames per second and then interlaced for NTSC. But every once in a while, something will be shot, rendered, composited, or otherwise generated as 60 distinguishable images per second, each of which contributes only a single field to the final result. My previous method of dealing with this content reduced everything to 30 FPS, resulting in halving either the frame count or the playback speed. This new approach is much prettier.

[wonkey_monkey]

Congratulations on finally learning about the bob() filter. Now stop using it and learn about the much, much better alternatives.

bob() is an extremely ugly filter.

Also your thread title is meaningless.

[hello_hello]

This is definitely how I'm doing the rest of my encodes for Andromeda, Batman Beyond, Birds of Prey, Carmen Sandiego, ER, and all those other shows that hello_hello thinks don't exist.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if there's not something seriously wrong with you. After you block me because you're too childish to listen to anyone else you talk about me in another thread. How old are you? I probably would have kept out of this thread if you weren't telling lies about me, but if you want to lie about me, I'll defend myself.

MOST content is done as film and telecined up to NTSC specs. SOME content is done at 30 progressive frames per second and then interlaced for NTSC.

Who'd have guessed?

But every once in a while, something will be shot, rendered, composited, or otherwise generated as 60 distinguishable images per second, each of which contributes only a single field to the final result.

Apparently you're attempting a slow back-peddle there..... you must be getting used to that.... and the concept of interlaced NTSC could slowly be sinking in..... welcome to 1960..... but if you lie about me I'm going to call you out on it.

This is what I disputed. I didn't dispute 60i existed. Once again I'm quoting you exactly. Stop deliberately misrepresenting the facts. If you have to lie to yourself that's one thing, but stop lying to everyone else.

Not quite. I'm talking about content where 60 unique frames per second are generated, one field from each frame is discarded, and the surviving fields are then weaved together. I provided some fairly specific examples if you'd like to know what I'm talking about, though you'd have to get the Region 1 versions of the DVDs.

60 unique "frames", you said. Then you went on to invent a fairytale about how this 60p video was transformed into 60i.
I've said over and over that 60i exists, but it was probably 60i to being with, not confabulated into existence using some theory Katie invented because only a day or two ago Katie knew less than she does now, as unlikely as that might seem to the uninitiated.

He's a couple of attempts at introducing Katie to the real world, quoted here to show Katie's either lying now or the slowest person I've ever encountered. I kind of hope it's the former.

NTSC is an interlaced format at 29.970fps. I said that the first time. And the second time.
If I'm seeing 60 unique fields per second it's native 60i. Agreed. That's the definition of NTSC.
You've somehow invented a distinction between standard interlaced NTSC and an imaginary 60fps progressive source where half the fields were removed to make it 60 fields per second instead of 60 frames per second, when it's probably just interlaced NTSC.
Once again, 60 unique fields weaved together is the definition of NTSC. Of course it exists, whether you want to call it standard NTSC or native NTSC so you can continue believing there's more than one type, but your theory of it originating from 60fps progressive video sounds highly unlikely, and more like one you invented before finally understanding it's probably just plain old interlaced NTSC.

Maybe it's my own failing. Maybe I should have written an essay explaining "two fields, one moment in time", verses "two fields, two moments in time", although as it was when I explained how field matching works I shattered enough illusions for her to respond by calling me a PAL monkey trying to understand NTSC.

My previous method of dealing with this content reduced everything to 30 FPS, resulting in halving either the frame count or the playback speed. This new approach is much prettier.

Wow! I mean seriously.... wow! I'm in danger of my head falling off due to the non-stop shaking while reading your posts.
I'll hand it to you, if this is one long troll it's the best troll I've ever seen. You must be a troll's troll. The troll queen of the internet.

Literally a day ago you were referring to dropping a field as the best de-interlacing method and everyone else was wrong. A day later, after discovering Bob(), you've started this thread pontificating your cleverness because now you're using the second dumbest de-interlacing method possible and you want to shout it to the world.

Here's what you ignored four days ago because you were busy posting stupid pictures and refusing to listen to anyone.

De-interlacing DVDs to 60fps (or 50fps) progressive is fairly standard now because hardware players generally have no problem with it, it looks much smoother than 30fps (or 25fps) and when you play an interlaced DVD, that's generally how it's being de-interlaced on playback anyway.

This is how you viewed 60fps video a few days ago:

That option isn't very useful for converting to VCD-compliant MPEG-1, or making anime music videos, or much of anything.

And now you have the audacity to start a thread declaring your 60fps cleverness while lying about me, claiming I said 60i video doesn't exist? (pauses to hold head again to prevent it falling off)
I'll confess as much as I dislike you and think you're either a sandwich short of a picnic, or just happy to blatantly lie, try as I might to ignore the feeling, after reading this thread I'm still embarrassed for you. I guess you don't know enough to be embarrassed for yourself yet, so until you do someone should do it for you.

[hello_hello]

Hmm... as far as I know (and I may be wrong) TV shows are not natively "60i". I know they are broadcast in North America as NTSC, but they are natively film or hybrid film (hybrid for special effects that sometimes are done at 30fps)... So if you like the soap opera look of native 24 fps content that has been changed to 60fps, then by all means go for it... to each their own. I would never do such things to my TV content

Older NTSC TV shows are often 29.970 interlaced (generally referred to as "video" rather than "film"). Well anything "NTSC" is 29.970 interlaced. One field making up a frame consists of the odd scan lines, while the other is the even scan lines, but they're a different moment in time (59.940 fields per second) so they're not the same as a single progressive frame where the whole frame is the same moment in time. 59.940 fields per second is how an interlaced CRT TV draws the image on the screen. All the odd lines, then all the even lines.

DVDs can hold 29.970 progressive too. Two fields, same moment in time, or one frame, single moment in time, however you look at it.

Most movies are 24p (23.976) and often stored that way on DVD, but for true "NTSC" playback they have pulldown applied. This explains how it works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

Often DVD content is simply one type, but often it's a mixture.

So yeah, Katie's just discovering what the rest of us have been doing for a long time now. NTSC (29.970 interlaced) can be de-interlaced to 59.940 progressive, rather than 29.970fps progressive. De-interlacing attempts to combine the fields from different moments in time as a single frame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing
She's doing it badly, but for true NTSC interlaced content de-interlacing to 59.940 progressive produces smoother motion than de-interlacing to 29.970.
Interlaced NTSC produces the soap opera effect partly because of the higher frame rate or temporal resolution, but that's how it's supposed to look. I wouldn't try to convert it to 24p.

For DVDs containing 24p video, you'd encode them that way, or if need be recover the original 24p (23.976) frames by applying reverse pulldown, but an NTSC DVD can contain a mixture of content types making it more fun to deal with, because after de-interlacing and pulldown reversal etc, some sections will be 23.976 fps "film" and other sections 29.970 fps or 59.940 fps "video".

Katie's an expert on all that though. Just ask her.

[Ghitulescu]

Hmm... as far as I know (and I may be wrong) TV shows are not natively "60i".

It depends on the definition of "TV Show".

Tele soaps and the like are not "TV shows" in my opinion (and many others'). "TV shows" are things that got captured (live or via tape) by a TV camera. Live debates, news, everything that is TV-only. Telenovelas and soaps and stuff are film or hybrid-film things made available for TV (id est NTSC).

[Katie Boundary]

Congratulations on finally learning about the bob() filter. Now stop using it and learn about the much, much better alternatives.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12991011_1680210412243414_3732707262764081165_n.jpg?oh=c503c2541d00b9b7b3ece6bce37e862f&oe=57A58657