Fast DeInterlace - v- Field DeInterlace

[Ramrunner]

OK, by now all of us figured out Fast DeInterlace causes the AVISynth error (see sticky note on how to fix).

Before that sticky note existed, I had already figured this out and just simply used Field DeInterlace.

My question is this.

I don't have a huge performance hit doing it this way. Mind you I spent the bucks and have a Pentium IV 2.0AGHz processor.

I can't really see it, but is the quality actually better using Field DeInterlace? Or Worse?

After finally working out all the IVTC and pure interlace source differences,and now always creating billiant quality movies, I'm just a bit curous on the algorithm differences between the two deinterlacing methods and whether one is truly better than the other.

Sorry if it's a bit off-topic.

Regards,
Ramrunner.

[jggimi]

From the GKnot FAQ:Q: What is the difference between "fast deinterlace" and "smart deinterlace" ?

A: "Fast deinterlace" simply reduces the vertical resolution by half which already gets rid of the interlacing pretty well, but is not using true deinterlacing method. "Smart deinterlace" uses a true deinterlace method. Which one is better only you can decide... your choice may be different depending on the source. For instance - I did some TV episodes that looked better with fast deinterlace than smart deinterlace, but for actual movies I would tend to use the smart deinterlacer rather than fast deinterlace.

[Ramrunner]

Thanks for that. That's what I thought but nice to have it confirmed.

Regards,
Ramrunner

[iparout]

Sorry for bringing up an old subject but, Field Deinterlace = Smart Deinterlace ?

Cause I have the same question as the guy who started the topic... (Field -vs- Fast Deinterlace)

Thanks

[jggimi]

Correct. Look at the comments in any .avs script produced by Gknot.

VerticalReduceBy2 = Fast Deinterlace
DeComb's FieldDeinterlace = Smart Deinterlace

[iparout]

Thanks for the reply...

Although your tagline makes me doubt about the credibility of your answer... :D :D

j/k