Why is pretty much all old 480i content deinterlaced to 30 fps instead of 60? Do people not realize that's throwing away half the temporal resolution? Even if you have an interlaced video file today, every player is set to deinterlace to 30 fps by default and you have to do extra shit to get it to do it the correct way and play at 60 fps. Who decided that combining fields into one frame and halving the frame rate was better than interpolating the missing field and keeping the frame rate at 60?
>>109405892visual fidelity is much more important than frame rate
>>109405903No it isn't retard. Having smooth motion is much better for video quality than the difference between 240 and 480 lines. When there's little motion you don't lose any resolution anyway.
>>109405892because it would halve the vertical resolution
>>109405936wrong
>>109406035Why would anyone prefer this
over this
>>109406067>>109406076What's the difference?
>>109406110The difference is so meaningful that transgender persons of color in /vr/‘s /crt/ general will spend their entire welfare check on specific monitors so they can brag in the general, but never actually turn them on outside of the first week of owning them.
>>109405892moron
>>109406141You don't need to deinterlace video on a CRT. This is about how to get the same full motion resolution on a modern display by deinterlacing to 60fps instead of 30.
>talking about interlaced video in the big 26Unc Status: CONFIRMED
>>109406416this kid thinks calling an unc is a dunk.
>>109406522I love you unc<3
>>109405936I hate 60fps video. It's pointless and it looks wierd.
>>109405936Not true. I'll have UHD 30fps over 1080p 60fps any fucking day.
>>109406701It's not our fault you have a low IQ that can't process many things at one time.
>>109406762The extra resolution and lack of banding are totally worth contemplation, I thank God for blessing me with higher intelligence.
>>109406762No, higher framerates are only needed if the details of moving things are actually important. otherwise it just wastes space and compute for the purpose of being a faggot online.
i60 is pixel equal to p30i60 > p60 would require halving the res or doubling every line per frameand that is retardedfrom a functional point of view to the regular consumer, i60 was a hack method to get higher framerate from limited hardware, with significant quality losses.from a technical point of view it was just the longstanding old broadcast TV standard due to it, being the standardnever use interlacenever support interlacenever allow interlace to be hald resed or line doubled to make same fps progressivebehead all those who insult progressive
>>109405892Bandwidth was limited and on old CRTs it did not remove that much quality due to how CRTs worked.Keep in mind that 480i is from the 1950s or maybe even older and was transmitted over the air as an analog signal like radio. You can't expect full HD using that technology (except in Japan where they had 1135i in the 1990s and on laserdiscs).
It depends on the content, doesn't it? Video games for example often show different frames in each field (if running at 60fps), but video usually does not.
>>109405892most people can't into video encoding. it also annoys me seeing people upload i50/i60 content at p25/p30 instead>>109407100video, in the traditional sense of the word video, referring to video tape, is always i50/i60. only stuff recorded to film was always p24.ever heard the term "soap opera effect"? this refers to cheaper tv shows (such as soap operas) being recorded on video tape rather than film, so ran at a higher frame (field) rate. this had lead some people to associate higher frame rates with lower quality programmingcamcorders all also ran at i50/i60 btw
>>109406939op isn't suggesting people use i60, he's complaining that people often take i60 video and convert it to p30, throwing away half the temporal resolution in the process.we have high quality deinterlacers like qtgmc (i use it on this >>109407161) these days which intelligently fill in the missing fields when making video into p60 (or p50 in this case)
>>109407161Interesting. So camcorded video actually is like 60fps 480i games. In that case, yes, I fully agree with you.
>>109407266yea, 50/60i video used to be very common, anything not made on film or on a computer (cgi) was 50/60i. news, most tv shows, commercials, home video, etc.
if i had a dollar for each time someone uploads interlaced content without handling it whatsoever, just letting it run at half the rate with combing artefacts (displaying interlaced video as if it were progressive)...i've seen this even in some actual high-budget films, it's embarrassingif you ever see pic related, someone fucked up/doesn't understand what they're doing, this is not how you display interlaced video
Ideally you'd have a dynamic system that combined the fields into a single frame for 30 fps in scenes without much motion, and then interpolated the frames themselves to get these scenes to 60 fps. And then for scenes with a lot of hard to interpolate motion, you could keep the original 60 fields per second and just interpolate the missing lines instead.
>>109408628QTGMC is a high end deinterlacer which takes motion into account
>>109406158>You don't need to deinterlace video on a CRTif its a pc monitor crt you do, you dont on a tv.
>>109407185>we have high quality deinterlacers like qtgmc (i use it on this >>109407161) these days which intelligently fill in the missing fields when making video into p60 (or p50 in this case)you are wrong, all deinterlacers suck to varying degrees depending on your video. i prefer yadif.https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/404164-Why-is-QTGMC-so-destructive-and-why-do-so-many-people-still-recommend-it
>>109407073>(except in Japan where they had 1135i in the 1990s and on laserdiscs).Go watch MUSE content. Resolution goes way down in areas of motion.
