No one cares? For decades this smooth presentation was the standard for live and taped television.
And remember this is FIELDS per second we're talking about here. Not frames. And no, two fields do not make a frame. That is s destructive process. Interlaced video is just different. Each field represents a unique moment in time, and when played back via interlaced video creates a smoother look than 30 frames per second video.
>>107743561i don't really get your point, most interlaced video is deinterlaced to 60fps not 30fps. It's a lot easier to just bilinearly interpolate between the fields to make a complete frame than to interleave the fields and then have to decimate the combing.
>>107743592>most interlaced video is deinterlaced to 60fpsThat is not true at all. The vast majority of OTA broadcasts are only available in 30 frames per second when they are released to streaming platforms.
interlaced 60 is the same bandwidth as progressive 30
>>107743761That's a condemnation. It means the interlaced video could be transmitted and displayed as the user prefers on their end. I'd rather have the full 60 fields per second smoothness with possible combing artifacts over the 30 frames per second presentation with judder and blur.
>>10774353660 was never standard for NTSC nor PAL.
I think a massive trick has been played on consumers, with the terms field and frame getting confused by many of them in the late 2000s through 2010s. Especially those people who think 1080i60 and 1080p30 are "the same thing". That is not true at all. Then there was the marketing that 30 frames per second is the "cinematic" look, which is just a load of BS to rationalize the decision/mistake.
>>107743536>No one cares?No one cares. We have progressive 60 fps. It's time to move on.
>>107743971You are technically correct. It's actually 59.94hz for NTSC.PAL is 50hz.
>>107743991>We have progressive 60 fps.We DON'T. Most every old television show that would benefit from 60 frames per second in order to preserve that 60 fields per second smoothness is being released in 30 frames per second on streaming platforms. The technology is there but it's not being utilized.
60hz interlaced was always a shitty compromise between physically raking electron guns, the US power grid, vacuum tubes, and radio spectrum. It was never good. It was always bad but in 1953 it was a reasonable 'best we can do and not cost more than a new car' type solution rather than asinine nostalgia.
>>107744004If it's shot on film or video it doesn't matter. Interlacing was done at the airing not on the filming. Lives were different though.
im glad interlaced is dead. many ps2 games image quality is raped by being forced into interlaced mode.
For example, for decades professional sports were presented in interlaced video formats with 60 fields per second of motion smoothness. Now, when those old tapes are converted and uploaded to streaming services 99% of the time they are only available in 30 frames per second. The two fields will have been blended together to make a frame. And they use pretty harsh methods to do it, because they want to get rid of all possible combing artifacts, so you get a much softer image than the original presentation. Detail is lost. This "live sports" feel is lost in the process, and anyone who watched football, basketball, boxing, or pro wrestling in the 20th century can tell you how it used to look a lot better than what is on the streaming networks now, even if they can't describe the technical details.
>>107744065>If it's shot on film or video it doesn't matter.Yes it does! That makes a huge difference! The tape formats of the 70s through 2010s recorded in native interlaced video format. The 60 fields per second smoothness is inherent to the format, and was preserved through the broadcasting signal chain. >Lives were different though.And live TV made up a massive amount of television history!
>>107744042 This isn't about nostalgia. This is about actual loss of information. You're being denied seeing the great majority of 20th century television as it was supposed to be seen.
What's pretty bad is if you search for 60 fps videos of old tv shows on youtube the majority of them have been converted to 60 fps via adding fake frames rather than using an original source.
If you want to see some examples of what 60 fields per second look like there is a channel on youtube called Reely Interesting. This person preserves the motion clarity of the original tapes by uploading in 4k 60 frames per second. https://youtu.be/gDMtKrPYVjs
Is this the same homosexuality guy who thinks movies should be shot in 60FPS?
>>107744953I have no idea who you are talking about, and this is a completely separate topic. This is addressing hundreds of thousands of hours of television that have already been made in 60 fields per second, but are not being archived in a way to preserve that.
>>107743592proper deinterlacer uses previous field as if keyframe reference with motion prediction?
The fact I've never heard of "fields per second" and I have little idea what OP is talking about leads me to believe that he may be onto something and I have been the victim of a con.
>>107745024I dunno you kinda talk like that faggot
>>107745111I don't know if I'd call that a "proper" deinterlacer but it's one of the most popular methods known as Yadif 2x.
