Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bdecided
... interlacing does (at least partly) achieve the gains it's supposed to. That's why it's used. It's not a conspiracy, and it's not a mistake - it actually works (i.e. gives better quality / lower bitrates). Even with H.264 (if the encoder handles interlacing well enough). [...]
It does make logical sense that packaging the (adaptive) interlacing and (adaptive) deinterlacing into the encoder should make it work better than externally - but it's more complexity: more tuning in the encoder; more work in the decoder. Has anyone ever done it?
|
I found this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://mewiki.project357.com/index.php?title=X264_Settings&oldid=3918
x264's interlaced encoding is inherently less efficient than its progressive encoding, so it is probably better to deinterlace an interlaced source before encoding rather than use interlaced mode.
|
2Bdecided, is this the bottom line or do you still maintain that it gives "better quality/lower bitrates" in h264? If yes, what other encoder than x264 are you refering to?