[MEncoder-users] interlaced/non-interlaced

[Reimar Döffinger]

On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 10:46:06AM +0200, Jarek Czekalski wrote:
> 
> >As I said, compare encodes. You'll see that the quality loss that comes
> >from the encoder not being able to handle interlaced material
> >efficiently is going to be much more than the loss from deinterlacing.
> >_______________________________________________
> Someone adviced not to deinterlace because in the future the devices
> will support instant deinterlacing on playback. But you conviced me,
> that when encoding at bitrates like 900kbps, it's better to
> deinterlace. I did those tests on a material captured from tv and
> the difference is big. Thanks.

Honestly, it all depends on what you need.
Some people cannot stand 25/30 fps content, they have the choice
of either coding at 60 fps or interlaced at 60 fps and use a good,
upsampling deinterlacer.
When the alternative is deinterlacing to 60 fps, keeping it
interlaced might be the better alternative, also since deinterlacers
particularly for that use case might still become better in the
next years.