Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
5th June 2008, 06:41 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Warren, Ohio
Posts: 12
|
Debate: Interlaced vs. Progressive
So this has been one mind-bender that has been nagging at me for a while and that has been the battle between Interlaced and Progressive content and the supposed 'need' to deinterlace said interlaced content from the getgo in many encoding situations.
Here's my take on it: If the original content is already progressive, there really isn't much to do there. And there really is no way to 'interlace' it back again since theorhetically you'd just end up with identical frames anyhow. If the original content was interlaced on the other hand, you are at the maximum of quality in terms of retaining as much information as you can. Deinterlacing inherently loses information even with the best deinterlacing filters. In addition, most playback devices/software at least with good built in filters are capable of doing good deinterlacing on the fly during playback. Many software dvd codecs are a good example of this. With this all said and done, why do you suppose it has long been such a habit of deinterlacing every piece of content regardless of destination? What are your opinions on the matter. FYI: This is not saying 'OMFG you must stop deinterlacing', but more of a start of a debate as to why you think this is still commonplace. |
5th June 2008, 07:51 | #2 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 823
|
I think deinterlacing became popular for three reasons:
- good deinterlacers were too hungry on the CPU to be be used in real-time back then and some new ones are now as well - some codecs didn't have an interlaced mode (DivX 3.11 for example) - a lot of times videos were resized to arbitrary sub-SD resolutions. One method of deinterlacing doesn't throw away any information at all BTW: bobbing. I agree with you that if your target is DVD on TV then deinterlacing doesn't make much sense. Also remember that a lot of 'deinterlacing' going on now in the AviSynth forum is actually trying to undo bad standard conversions. Last edited by GodofaGap; 5th June 2008 at 07:54. |
5th June 2008, 08:06 | #3 | Link |
interlace this!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: i'm in ur transfers, addin noise
Posts: 4,555
|
a lot of editors and directors want a "filmic" look (i don't like that word, but there aren't any others to use), so they deinterlace.
my personal opinion is if you want it to look like film, shoot it to look like film, or just cough up the dough and actually shoot film. a "film look" is not at all a post decision - it must be considered from before shooting starts. the video look comes from more than just the interlace. as far as deinterlacing everything in the encoding world, it's probably because the majority of codecs don't support it, and a large amount of the delivery methods out there don't support it (you can't bob in youtube or flash). i think video can look quite good and don't see the point in making something juddery and blurry/jumpy in the name of some impossible (in most video situations) film look.
__________________
sucking the life out of your videos since 2004 |
5th June 2008, 08:46 | #4 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,545
|
When it comes to sports footage, deinterlaced (bob-deinterlacing anyway) is always better IMO. Even if information is lost or none gained at all, the smooth motion that results from deinterlacing is pleasing on the eyes. And since sports footage always has a lot of motion, real-time bobbers are often not up to par and the sharp diagonal lines that make up the court or field can be aliased quite easily using conventional deinterlacers. Using a slow motion-based bobber like MCBob combined with NNEDI often is the best way to make the sports footage look good when it's deinterlaced.
__________________
Pirate: Now how would you like to die? Would you like to have your head chopped off or be burned at the stake? Curly: Burned at the stake! Moe: Why? Curly: A hot steak is always better than a cold chop. |
5th June 2008, 13:19 | #5 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 957
|
You must deinterlace when watching on a progressive display or you see the combing. When you do it is up to you. You can do it in the decoder, in pre-processing, in the second decoder, in post-processing. I do it because I watch everything on my PC using a progressive CRT monitor on it. If I made a DVD or something to be shown on my TV then I may leave it interlaced.
__________________
x264 log explained || x264 deblocking how-to preset -> tune -> user set options -> fast first pass -> profile -> level Doom10 - Of course it's better, it's one more. |
5th June 2008, 19:48 | #6 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Right, but you're still at the mercy of your DVD player / TV's processor. Who knows, it might do a dumb bob. Obviously if you're encoding a DVD it's best to leave it interlaced, but if you're encoding a file for playback on a PC connected to a progressive display, I find it necessary to encode 60p. This is one reason I really like 720p!
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
21st December 2009, 15:06 | #7 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 42
|
Interesting (old) thread. Basically we have a set of limitations. Camera sensor. codec. Display device. pre/post processing.
You will never get a higher field-rate or spatial resolution than that offered by the sensor. You will never get to watch a higher frame/field-rate or resolution than that offered by your display device. And in a bandwidth-limited world, your quality may be limited by the lossy compression, codecs may be more efficient on p than i material. I tend to see interlacing as an analog 2:1 perceptually motivated compression method. I dont really see its purpose in this digital era, except for legacy purposes. If you want to trade motion/resolution/bandwidth, then use a lossy digital codec that does it intelligently.. -k |
21st December 2009, 17:09 | #8 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gotham City, USA
Posts: 389
|
I've recently been watching a lot of football at my buddy's house, it looks GOOD on a modern plasma TV.
Am I crazy, or does the live (US NFL) football coverage constantly switch back and forth bewteen interlaced and progressive? It often seems like you are seeing progessive graphics overlayed on an interlaced video stream, and some video streams seem smoother then others. |
22nd December 2009, 01:35 | #9 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Yep, it's a real nightmare with live video - espeically when progressive graphics are overlaid on top of an interlaced video stream, with occasional cuts to a (probably) progressive slow-mo camera, and everything else, plus probably some upscaled SD - then toss in commercials!!
ROFL! Once they start broadcasting 1080p60 this will all go away hehe ~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
22nd December 2009, 01:54 | #11 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Exactly, and how nice is that? Especially considering their craptacular encoders
Is anyone actually broadcasting H.264 in the U.S.? Cable / Satellite/ OTA? ~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
22nd December 2009, 11:45 | #14 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
|
While most sources are interlaced and most viewing devices are progressive - it's hard to answer.
NB: some progressive camcorders store their movies interlaced, for compatibility reasons. Probably the best example is Canon. |
24th December 2009, 09:20 | #15 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's on paper only. As it happens :
Now, I may be biased on the subject, and I might miss some arguments in favor to interlacing. But I don't see which ones.
__________________
|
||
24th December 2009, 11:52 | #16 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,181
|
Quote:
It seems Sony's LCD TVs have quite good deinterlacer. I guess Sony will stick to producing interlaced Camcorders because it looks better on their LCD TV than others. |
|
25th December 2009, 07:52 | #18 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Dish Network can't be broadcasting entirely H.264! My parents still have a receiver from at least 6 years ago that works perfectly. It's definitely MPEG-2 only!
I know they plan to broadcast H.264 in the future, or maybe they're only doing it for HD feeds? I wonder how these companies address legacy receivers. ~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
25th December 2009, 15:19 | #19 | Link | |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Quote:
I have an old MPEG2 only HD DirecTV box that I had to eat. |
|
28th December 2009, 22:29 | #20 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Interesting! I would love to see a proper comparison between Dish, and DirecTV's video quality - maybe with Comcast thrown in for good measure (as I know they still use a lot of MPEG-2 in most areas).
Do you know of such a resource, neuron2? Also, how would you subjectively grade DirecTV's HD services? Man - we're getting OT though! Looks like that's my fault . To get things back on track - has anybody actually seen a 1080p60 broadcast in any form? ~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
Tags |
content, deinterlace, interlaced, progressive, quality |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|