That is the question??

Original video captured from VHS. Interlaced, I think. Making a DVD with it.
Some may watch the DVD on TV (with DVD player), some may watch it on their
computer.

From what I understand (which isn't too much, I'm pretty much a newbie at
this) interlaced video is the norm for television viewing. (I read something
about the practice starting due to the slow refresh rate of old TV tubes, or
something like that.) Interlaced video does not look good on computer
screens, however, so video primarily for viewing on computers is usually
de-interlaced. (Is that summary of interlacing basically correct?)

However--if some may watch the DVD on TV, others may watch on computer, is
the video usually de-interlaced or not? Do modern TVs (tube and LCD) really
require interlaced video?

I would appreciate some guidance on this question. Thank you.

Show quote Hide quote   The quick answer is: if it will be shown on a normal TV,
not progressive scan, not "Digital"; then you should keep
the video interlaced.  Computers have no problem with
interlaced video, they just deinterlace it as they play it.

  Only if you know that it will be played exclusively on
Progressive scan displays, would it be worthwhile to
apply a deinterlace filter and convert the video early in
its processing.

Check out www.digitalfaq.com

Luck;
     Ken

If a video on a DVD is deinterlaced, and played back on a normal TV, what
will the result look like?

Or, do DVD authoring programs automatically "re-interlace" video that has
been deinterlaced, in creating a DVD?

Show quote Hide quote   Did you look up this subject at the site I gave you?

Ken

Show quote Hide quote No he did not.  He is lazy and expects you to write an essay on the subject
at his poor level of comprehension.

Show quote Hide quote TVs that have a picture tube are always interlaced, so, yes it
will be reinterlaced, but the resolution(both temporal and spatial)
that was lost during the deinterlacing process will be still be lost.
That is to say it won't be as sharp on the TV and the motion will
appear less smooth than it was before deinterlacing.

Most programs that do deinterlaceing will throw away one
of the fields (halving the resolution). Then they either just
duplicate the field that was kept to fill in the missing frame,
or they will interpolate between the lines that were maintained
to simulate some of the lost information.

Some programs have smart deinterlacers that keep all of the
spatial resolution in areas of the picture that have no motion,
but areas that do have motion will lose the temporal resolution
during the motion. Virtual-dub is one such program.

David

Show quote Hide quote Analogue MPEG2 capture here (US) is done interlaced.

Using an MPEG2 encoder, any DVD compliant or better captures which I've seen
will playback to a digital display without interlace artifacts.  Deviate
below that spec and you might see interlace artifacts.

Just in case your potential viewers, using their PCs, have a problem, they
can use the VLC player, which is free, (and surely others) which allows for
de-interlacing during playback!

Most of my captures remain as MPEG2, 12 mbps, until viewed and discarded.
None of these shows artifacts on digital displays.  Some I have converted
using VSO's DIVXtoDVD.  The lower bit-rate encodings of this process (often
below 4 mbps) are prone to artifacts.  All the more reason not to use this
product, eh?  Shunt the video to a raster TV and no problema!

BJ

It's a simple compression technique.  Given a certain amount of analog
TV broadcast channel width, and a reasonable horizontal resolution, about
15750 scan lines per second were available in NTSC.  This could provide
either about 240 lines per frame at 60 Hz progressive scan, or 480 lines
at 30 Hz interlaced scan.  For most subjects, interlaced looks better
because of the higher vertical resolution.

PAL makes the same tradeoff, but the 25 Hz frame rate allows more lines
per frame (576).  Wider channel spacing allows more horizontal
resolution as well.

The tradeoff is still useful.  HDTV can provide either 1920x1080 pixels
at 30 Hz interlaced or 1280x720 at 60 Hz progressive.  Some north
american networks are goiing to use one by default, some will use the
other.  The difference now is that all HDTV sets will handle both.

Computers normally use non-interlaced displays at much higher frame rate;
60 to above 100 HZ.  They can do this because the cable between graphics
card and monitor does not impose a restriction on bandwidth.

    Dave

Interlacing is used with TV primarily because it eliminates flicker at the relatively low scan rates used because of the limited broadcast bandwidth. In North America TV is broadcast at 30 frames per second, but the interlace results in 60 fields per second so you don't see any flicker.
DVDs uses MPEG2 video compression, which handles video a frame at a time. The MPEG2 codec eliminates most redundant data and the resulting images are further compressed (similar to jpeg). This results in good images at high compression rates. When the images are reconstructed during playback they can be displayed either interlaced or non-interlaced, depending on the player. The display monitor does not have to match the frame rate of the DVD, e.g. you can use a monitor running at 80 frames per second, even though the image might change only 30 times per second.
Some video cards used to supply both interlaced and non-interlaced output, and it worked quite well. I had a 80486 PC with a video card that ran at, I believe, a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024, but at this resolution it was fast enough from only about 40 frame per second / 80 fields per second interlaced.

MS wrote:
Show quoteHide quote

Trying to understand the components of DV capture/edit/viewing
Should mjpeg and DV video look essentially the same on a tv? More vertical banding problems.
UVW 1200 to EVO 9720
are expensive video cables any better?
Running S-video in one RG59 cable ?
Video surveillance directly to hard drive
Timecode on VX-1000
What is an XLR adapter?
Sony CCD-F70 Tape Door Won't Open & Manual
Want to buy a PAL converter,need advice?