Encoding for LCD display

[Stephen De vere]

I’ve only ever known it recommended as a pre-process step before scaling.
https://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/preprocessing_hodgetts.html

[Stephen De vere]

“Totally wrong, the question is how is your footage shoot, LCDs still display interlaced footage……”

Michael,

But since LCD/Plasmas are progressive displays is it not better to feed it your ‘best’ shot at a progressive signal rather than leaving IT to do the job ? Or are they in effect disabled from handling progressive images by the inclusion of the de-interlacer in their hardware ?

[Michael Sacci]

LCD and Plasma handle interlaced, once again, they are HD displays but not all HD is progressive so why do people think that SD DVD need to be progressive? Like Noah states you are throwing away 1/2 of the image. It is understandable to do this for the web, for one thing you are normally going to a low res and smaller size which can take the hit. WIth DVD stay with what you have. Just about all the computer software can deinterlace anyway.

But if you want to do it anyway go ahead, do your test, if you like it do it. I just think it is a waste of time for lower quality all the way around.

While I’m at it in the article they also say to crop 4:3 letterbox source footage to 16:9, that also is a waste of time, you are enlarging the video by 135% to do that, no video holds up well to that.

[Stephen De vere]

I don’t know about elswhere in the world but the majority of LCD/Plasma TVs here in UK are not true HD but termed ‘HD Ready’ and it’s precisely because they show a progressive picture (albeit using an interlace scan signal) that I wonder what the sense of feeding them i/laced is, if you can avoid it (and I thought we all want to see the end of interlacing asap).

I guess it only makes sense if the set has a progressive input for progressive DVD players, thus by-passing the de-interlacer.

[Andrius Simutis]

Data rate for the more modern codecs like H.264 can be much lower than MPEG2 and give better quality since the MPEG2 codec had to be locked in for DVD back in the mid 90’s.
There are too many variables besides bit rate that will impact the quality. Using a higher end encoder with multiple passes and an experienced compressionist can give a much nicer picture using half the bit rate of a CBR encoder that came with your computer.

[Michael Sacci]

Whatever dude. If you don’t want interlace than you shoot progressive and then it all makes sense. If fact why not just make BluRay DVDs since we also want to get out of SD asap.

Once again if you like what you get do it. If others are reading my suggest is DON”T do it, you add time to the process and you are throwing away 1/2 of the image when you deinterlace. But if anyone likes the results then by all means do it.

[Stephen De vere]

No, I don’t want to de-interlace particularly, just trying to indentify exactly what the problem is in the workflow.

HD is a big part of the problem of course, but I don’t want it to beat me here – it’s caused me enough trouble in my life as it is.

[Stephen De vere]

“…… Using a higher end encoder with multiple passes and an experienced compressionist can give a much nicer picture using half the bit rate of a CBR encoder that came with your computer.”

Thanks everyone – I suspect this is most likely the answer.