View Single Post
Old 31st March 2010, 20:16   #57  |  Link
Manao
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
lovelove : Deinterlacing != bobbing. The quote from mewiki is misleading. If you deinterlace an interlaced source, you lose information (since you halves the motion). So saying it's more efficient is misleading, because the efficiency doesn't consider the lost information. What the quote wants to say is that, if you take an interlaced video, encode it with some bitrate X, and measure the PSNR, you'll get a (far lower) PSNR than if you deinterlace, encode it at the same bitrate X, and measure PSNR (against the deinterlaced version, of course). You're actually comparing apples and oranges when you do that, but it's an easy mistake to conclude that it's more efficient.

Furthermore, x264 is a very efficient encoder, but when encoding interlaced content, it's lacking some major tools (either field picture support, or adaptive mbaff, or both) that seriously hampers it in regards to the concurrence. That doesn't mean it will be worse, but it does mean there is a lot of room (from 0.5 to 2dB, depending on the sequence) for improvement in x264 when it comes to interlacing.
__________________
Manao is offline   Reply With Quote