[MPlayer-users] Re: which deinterlace filter

[D Richard Felker III]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 08:37:49AM +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> rcooley <rcooley at spamcop.net> writes:
> 
> >> PAL is technically much superior to NTSC (much more resolution, much
> >> better color, not that stange framerates of 30000/1001, etc).
> > Not really true.  While PAL does have a slightly higher resolution, it
> > makes up for it by having a significantly lower fram rate.  I really
> > wouldn't consider a nominally higher resolution an improvement, since a
> > lot of that signal is discarded anyhow.
> 
> Before Rich joins in and we get a nice flamewar ;-), my final statement:

Me, flamewar? Only if uneducated Matroska fanboi types start spewing
propaganda.

> I also think, PAL is technologically superiore to "NeverTwicetheSameColour",
> it has to be, since it came later. I'd expect the developers to get it
> right the second time ;-), And it basically is NTSC with automatic hue
> correction. Apart from the different frequencies, both systems are very
> similar, just that phase-change-thing in PAL was a very good idea. :-)

I agree, PAL is much better for DVD, especially for movies. Granted
you have to correct for the 4% speed difference, but that process is
lossless. On the other hand, there's no way to recover extra vertical
resolution lost by sampling at NTSC size (480 lines) instead of PAL
(576).

On the other hand, for actual television, the low 50 Hz refresh of PAL
is probably very hard on the eyes, and not good at all. I've never
seen a PAL TV, so I can't comment on any personal experience with it,
though.

> ...and highspeed is no problem, there is also "-fps 24" in mplayer...

This will break a/v sync or else do nothing, I forget which. You need
-speed 24/25. :)

Rich