Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

It would appear that Broadcast Television is often 1080i30 (60 fields/s), and non-movie DVDs (example, instructional or TV shows) are 60fields/s as well, at some lower resolution (480i?)

However, almost all video that ends up on the internet, whether in x264-encoded content, Youtube, etc. is 30 frames per second, that is to say , it is progressive scan. However, when you watch content on your TV, I'm guessing the TV converts it to progressive for you, but the end result is a very fluid picture that "feels" quite a bit like 60frames/s.

What is the best way to obtain this result when ripping interlaced content sourced from TV or DVDs? Can I rip a DVD that is 60 fields per second to 60 frames per second? I would imagine classic deinterlace filters do not do this, they merge fields and create a 30fps output.

I'm using handbrake.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

You haven't specified operating system but if you use avisynth as the frameserver there are a number of filters you could use to achieve this, notably QTGMC which is (currently) the best deinterlacing filter.

Extract from wiki:

YourSource("yourfile")    # DGDecode_mpeg2source, FFVideoSource, AviSource, whatever your source requires
QTGMC( Preset="Slow" )
SelectEven()              # Add this line to keep original frame rate, leave it out for smoother doubled frame rate

So basically leave out the last line, which throws away every second frame, and you are left with all 60 frames.

You can even achieve this effect on non-native 60fps (i.e. 30fps sources) using frame interpolation via something like SVP. Spiriton wrote a pretty good guide here for doing just this. I've linked his comparison files below for reference:

Original File | Converted File

share|improve this answer

Can I rip a DVD that is 60 fields per second to 60 frames per second?

Note that a 1080i60 video would have 60 fields per second, not frames - each field consists of approximately half a frame (or rather, every other horizontal line of pixels interleaved). Unless you are viewing the video natively on a CRT-based display, it will probably have to be deinterlaced before being displayed regardless (in which case, it will be down-converted on-the-fly to 1080p30).

Youtube videos are not always 30 FPS, it can differ. It is indeed, however, progressive, as there aren't really any interlaced displays anymore. Also, x264 appears to be able to output interlaced mode should you desire it.

However, when you watch content on your TV, I'm guessing the TV converts it to progressive for you, but the end result is a very fluid picture that "feels" quite a bit like 60frames/s.

Regardless, 1080i60 will still appear to be "jerky" under fast motion. 1080p broadcasting standards have been ammended to include 1080p60, which would be especially visible under sports and fast-motion videos. Many DSLR and mirrorless cameras can also output high-framerate progressive video now.

Furthermore, the "fluid picture" might actually be a side-effect of any motion interpolation (e.g. Motion Flow, TruMotion 120Hz) which often leads to the "soap opera effect" and other visual artifacts, although this is also highly content dependent.


TL,DR: I would convert and encode the video as progressive unless you had a reason to keep it interlaced (e.g. editing source video), in which case I would probably opt to just keep the source medium as-is and not recompress it. Keep in mind that almost all new displays are purely progressive in operation, as only scan-line displays are capable of displaying interlaced content.

You can apply filters to reduce deinterlacing noise as well, which would keep the viewing experience consistent between computers (which might have a different filter/output stack and deinterlace differently). Using Handbrake, you can deinterlace or decomb the video before compressing it.

share|improve this answer

protected by Breakthrough Jun 26 '13 at 17:27

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.