[MEncoder-users] How does one interlace progressive content?

[Ivo]

On Wednesday 15 August 2007 12:38, Pierre Catello wrote:
> 2007/8/14, Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at stud.uni-karlsruhe.de>:
> > thing can happen easily if you have the usual person without a clue
> > using an encoder that is crap (and looking at some of my DVDs, there
> > are a lot of both in that field - but with most using dual layer DVDs
> > that's not really much of a problem).
>
> You're wrong. Interlaced encoding can arise from other reasons, and with
> people who do have clues about video processing.
> But, you, do you have any clues about industrial processes (in particular
> DVD production), or broadcast processes. Do you really think that someone
> is "manually encoding" each content that you find on a DVD or a DVB
> stream ?? You of course know that in many cases hardware encoder are
> used, or single pass real time encoder in the case of DVB, without
> information about the incoming or source stream.
>
> As you said it, encoding as interlaced, beside not being optimal
> regarding *size*, can accomodate both progressive and interlaced source,
> so it is the most versatile way of encoding automatically without meta
> data describing the incoming source. DVDs  have enough room to "waste
> bits" as you said, which, IMHO is not wasting bits but using them in an
> automatic process having to deal with a wide variaty of sources without
> risking to compromize quality.

When I pay good money for a DVD (i.e. not the 5 euro-bin) I expect it to be 
encoded manually and of the best quality possible (properly preprocessed, 
progressively encoded, etc). I have seen DVD's that had a behind-the-scenes 
documentairy on it that looked like a bad VHS copy. The extra's are one of 
the things that make me buy non-budget DVD's, but if they look like crap 
and are obviously the automated rush-job you speak of, I'd rather do 
without them.

--Ivo