Hi

. . . . Does it mean that these are resolutions that can actually be displayed on this TV? . . .

According to the top line of the manual page you posted they are the resolutions the TV will display depending on the input being used by for example the disc player, which for maximum versatility should be the HDMI port.

However, your original question was :-

. . . . I have some videos that were originally recorded in 576i and was wondering whether deinterlacing them would improve or degrade the picture quality when playing back on the TV. . . .

Which ever interlaced resolution you use the TV is going to de-interlace it for the reasons that have been stated before.

Also at the bottom of the page you posted is:

. . . . The above signals are reformatted for optimal viewing on your display . . . .

This means the TV is going to upscale or down scale, video not of the same resolution as the screen in order to fill the screen, possibly with black borders for none 16:9 aspect ratio video.

To go back to your original question - whether the TV de-interlacing is better than doing it in MEP is a question only you can decide by testing.

John EB

Hi

Thanks for the answer

. . . . The two copies I made straight to a disc. The first one I exported as progressive and the second one I left interlaced. . . . .

However that does not give us enough detail on what options you selected, which codec, eg mpeg-2 or h.264, you used etc.

Also we still need an answer to

. . . . The one which I deinterlaced in MEP looked progressive if that makes sense . . . .

We need a clear picture of what you did and saw for you to make the comment.

John EB

 

Hello,

I encoded both versions in MPEG-2.

What I mean by the one I de-interlaced looked progressive is when playing it back on the TV, it looked like it had actually been converted to a progressive format because I had selected "progressive" in the encoding menu before writing to disc. (I'm not sure how else to explain it). Whereas with the other copy, I wrote to disc with the setting interlaced top field first as that was what the videos were originally recorded in. So when playing that back on the TV it looked just like the master copy as I had made no adjustment.

Phew....Okay

it looked like it had actually been converted to a progressive format

Can you not describe the attributes of the picture that you saw, that in your mind = progressive?

Whereas with the other copy, I wrote to disc with the setting interlaced top field first as that was what the videos were originally recorded in. So when playing that back on the TV it looked just like the master copy..

Can you describe the attributes of the picture that you saw that were different to the progressive disc, that in your mind = interlaced?

What was the "master copy" and how were you viewing it ? Was it the camera disc that you had placed in the Blu ray player? If so you could expect it to look (almost) the same as if it was an mpeg2 disc created interlaced in MEP, but it does not prove the TV is not doing some sort of de-interlacing.

Phew....Okay

it looked like it had actually been converted to a progressive format

Can you not describe the attributes of the picture that you saw, that in your mind = progressive?

Whereas with the other copy, I wrote to disc with the setting interlaced top field first as that was what the videos were originally recorded in. So when playing that back on the TV it looked just like the master copy..

Can you describe the attributes of the picture that you saw that were different to the progressive disc, that in your mind = interlaced?

What was the "master copy" and how were you viewing it ? Was it the camera disc that you had placed in the Blu ray player? If so you could expect it to look (almost) the same as if it was an mpeg2 disc created interlaced in MEP, but it does not prove the TV is not doing some sort of de-interlacing.

Hi,

I'm sorry I can't be more precise. But, yeah, the master copy is the original recording on the Sony mini discs which I place in the Blu-Ray Player to view on the TV. The interlaced copy I made in MEP using the MPEG-2 format looks exactly the same as it does on the mini disc recordings, straight from the camera. However, the progressive copy I made using MPEG-2 in MEP looked different. When playing back on the TV It looked like it had been shot in progressive format rather then in interlaced. For instance, the panning of the camera appears a lot smoother.

J

So that you can get an idea of what interlaced material looks like without deinterlacing on playback, in your project that has your interlaced MPEG2 from your camera disc, go to your Program Settings and uncheck "Automatic deinterlacing" at the bottom of the "Audio / Video" Tab. On any sections where there is significant horizontal movement, panning or an object moving across the frame, you should see "combing" structures appear along vertical parts of the picture. This should disappear when you re-enable the deinterlacing in the Program setting.

If you do not see this combing on your TV then it or the DVD player is applying some kind of deinterlacing.

..... It looked like it had been shot in progressive format rather then in interlaced. For instance, the panning of the camera appears a lot smoother.

Usually Progressive looks more jerky @ 25fps which is why there are a lot of cameras that shoot 50P to make it smoother. Smoother motion at 25fps was one of the advantages of interlacing as it gave the eye less perceived flicker by showing 50 (half) images per second and is often referred to as 50i.

Of course it is possible that MEP is doing a better job of deinterlacing than your TV's electronics and algorithms, so you just need to decide what will give you the most pleasing result.

Hi

. . . . It looked like it had been shot in progressive format rather then in interlaced. For instance, the panning of the camera appears a lot smoother . . .

I am in agreement with Scenestealer on this, Progressive video from de-interlaced video is not a smooth on pans and movement across the screen. See this article.

As both Scenestealer and myself have said - you have to decide which looks best on your TV.

However, if you are producing discs to be played on other systems, the unknown reformatting of the video signal by your TV, leads to another possible issue - what looks good on your TV may look bad on a, for example, a Full HD (1920 x 1080) or a 4K TV.

HTH

John EB