Comment Re:Motive? (Score 2) 359
That said, its use in this thread probably *is* racist; typically when someone utters the word, outside of their small group of friends who have already agreed on the refined definition, that's the intent.
Most progressive TV's will upscale each field to 1080p (de-interlace) and only one field displays at a time
You're talking about the alignment of the half-resolution frame. The TV's already account for that.
Which is it? Because those two comments, both from your own fingers, represent completely opposing positions. If the fields are upscaled (height doubled) and displayed independently of each other, as in the first quote, then you get the oscillation I was talking about. the second quote is absolutely correct and I'm glad to see you've realized that you were wrong; a little disappointed that you expressed that realization in the form of an argument, but satisfied nonetheless.
With modern de-interlacing algorithms, it's much easier to just think of it as double-framerate at half-resolution, since that's what the TV will do.
Modern de-interlacing algorithms? You mean the ones your media player application offers you in its configuration? If you have an interlaced stream that starts with an odd field, weaving fields into full frames will always result in better quality. If the stream starts with an odd frame, it's possible that the stream was improperly edited, or that the fields are reversed on all frames; in the first case, you can simply discard the first field, while in the other case, you just reverse the rendering order of the fields, but you still end up weaving them together. A broadcast stream will always have markers every keyframe or so to indicate its resolution, whether it's progressive or interlaced, and, if interlaced, field order, so broadcast interlaced video can always be properly de-interlaced. "Modern" de-interlacing algorithms are designed around simply not knowing and not being able to tell, in an automated way, what they're dealing with, which is important in a media player, since you can't rely on the random files users will throw at you to have proper metadata; their aim is not quality, it's ease of use.
That's what CRT's essentially did, but had phosphor fade to help them.
Well, yes, that's precisely what CRTs did. They skipped the width of one scanline (a little more, or less, if not properly calibrated) between each scanline while rendering one field, then rendered the following field in between. This is still the only *proper* way to de-interlace interlaced video, anything else is just compensating for not knowing if the content its display is (properly) interlaced or not.
an image that appears to oscillate at your framerate (up on the even fields and down on the odd)
Don't believe me? Go find an old NTSC camcorder, doesn't matter if it's a consumer or pro model, whether it originally sold for $100 to $100,000, as long as it's NTSC, it's going to record interlaced frames. Got one? Good. Now, mount it on a stable tripod, point it at a stationary object that has a sharp horizontal edge and record a few seconds of video; it doesn't matter how much, really, as all you need is 2 consecutive fields (1 frame). Now, get those 2 consecutive fields onto your computer, individually, however you can (a decent capture card and an S-Video connection will suffice) and overlay them onto one-another. Not the same, are they? One of them has that horizontal edge 1 pixel higher than the other, doesn't it? That one's your odd field, the one that's 1px lower is your even field. In fact, everything in that field is 1px higher than everything in the other field, and some fine details running along the horizontal axis appear in one frame, but not the other.
Your fields, being shot by a stationary camera aimed at a stationary subject, would be identical if interlaced video were, as you're simplifying it to be, simply half-height frames.
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce