TMPGEnc: Interlaced vs. Non-Interlaced?

[gonzopdx]

Just a quick question:

When encoding to MPEG2 (SVCD), which should be used? Interlaced or Non-Interlaced? What are the differences in the resulting MPEG? Any difference in size?

Thanks..

-gonzo

[kwag]

If your target is SVCD, you don't need to de-interlace. That's an advantage of SVCD over standard VCD. So if your source is interlaced, you just encode without any de-interlacing. If your source is progressive FILM, then you encode at 23.976fps with 3:2 pulldown enabled. This way you keep the original frame rate, and your SVCD will look better than if you encode at 29.97fps.

-kwag

[gonzopdx]

I usually do an IVTC if it's Telecined before I encode it, thus encoding at a steady 23.976. My question is the differences between doing a Progressive encode (Non-Interlaced) vs. Interlaced encode for the actual target MPEG..

If, for example, my source is FILM (23.976), I should then encode at 23.976 with 3:2 pulldown enabled (thus making it 29.97)? Why not just encode at 23.976 Interlaced..?

[kwag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grivad

I usually do an IVTC if it's Telecined before I encode it, thus encoding at a steady 23.976. My question is the differences between doing a Progressive encode (Non-Interlaced) vs. Interlaced encode for the actual target MPEG..

If, for example, my source is FILM (23.976), I should then encode at 23.976 with 3:2 pulldown enabled (thus making it 29.97)? Why not just encode at 23.976 Interlaced..?

Because for SVCD you must encode 23.976 and use 3:2 pulldown. SVCD doesn't support encoding directly at 23.976 without pulldown. VCD does.

-kwag

[gonzopdx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag

Because for SVCD you must encode 23.976 and use 3:2 pulldown. SVCD doesn't support encoding directly at 23.976 without pulldown.

Well technically SVCD doesn't support any resolutions other than 480x480 either I've encoded many an SVCD directly at 23.976 with no problems with encoding or playback.

What we're creating here are X(S)VCD's, which are non-standard..

So what would be the technical drawbacks to encoding to Interlaced vs. Progressive, or vice-versa, or encoding to 23.976 w/ or w/out pulldown.. that's my question..

I've done a few tests, and the only differences I've found so far is a smaller size with Interlaced (though it looks like garbage), and a much larger file when doing 3:2 pulldown.

[SansGrip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grivad

So what would be the technical drawbacks to encoding to Interlaced vs. Progressive, or vice-versa, or encoding to 23.976 w/ or w/out pulldown.. that's my question..

Interlaced material will be at 29.97fps, which is 20% more than progressive NTSC film. The only time I would say stick with interlaced is if you're encoding from a non-telecined source such as a TV cap.

A DVD player should be able to do the telecine internally if the correct flag is set in the SVCD header. At least, that's my understanding from other posts. I don't make SVCDs since my standalone won't play them .

[gonzopdx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SansGrip

Interlaced material will be at 29.97fps

Ahh yes, this makes perfect sense. I didn't even think of that

Thanks!

-gonzo