... unless the original material is shot interlaced e.g. 1080i50 or 1080i60 so the fields are of different moments in time. De-interlacing these usually means dumping the 2nd field so you do lose half the picture information - or you can somehow cleverly combine the fields to make frames - but you'll end up with some kind of kludge of definition particularly on moving action.
__________________________________________________________
Crispin Holland, Editor/Director, CrispTV Ltd - www.crisptv.co.uk - 07711 069 100
Online editor on BAFTA winning 'Derren Brown - The Experiments'
Musical Performer on World Cup Song: www.crisptv.co.uk/pop
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, electropura212 wrote:
>
> You are correct... with HD sources, the two fields are actually the same
> moment in time. No loss in resolution to combine them.
>
>
> Time for the Men In Black neutralizer. Forget I ever said that.
>
> J
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Steve Hullfish wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > You don't really lose 1/2 the resolution when you de-interlace. That's an
> > absolute fallacy. Almost any program that does de-interlacing is simply
> > combining the two halves (first field and second field) to make a new
> > de-interlaced file with ALL of the resolution of the original two fields,
> > in one progressive frame.
> >
> > Steve Hullfish
> > contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
> > author: "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction"
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2013, at 11:46 AM, T Hopkins hoplist@... >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The argument used to be that a deinterlaced file compresses better and
> > is also smaller, but yes, you sacrifice temporal resolution at least. I
> > never bought this argument myself.
> > >
> > > However, there is a better reason now, progressive displays. Because it
> > is so common now for DVDs to be viewed using progressive displays or
> > displays that scale interlaced material poorly, deinterlacing prior to
> > compression provides a more predictable playback.
> > >
> > > My companies produces almost all programming as 29.97 progressive. Yes,
> > we sacrifice a small amount of temporal resolution, but gain in quality is
> > significant. Remember that a progressive master can always be played back
> > or converted to interlaced without degradation but the reverse is rarely
> > true.
> > >
> > > The one substantial weakness of 30p is 24p, which converts badly. If
> > your source material is predominantly 24p, and your destination is
> > traditional "broadcast" then 29.97i is your only good solution.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > tod
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (17) |
No comments:
Post a Comment