The Kurgan wrote:
The VHS source is obviously interlaced, it couldn't be anything else.
Barry Durex wrote:
Looks good, wasn't this originally recorded on video tape then?
1. Of course, but that doesn't make it a video tape material. This is what happens sometimes when a film source is put on a tape - it simply duplicates the fields, thus making the same frame show up two times in a row. This is evident in BrianWig's transfer of CLTCL Bristol 79 (yeah, that is film too and it is native progressive material), the common old laserdisc transfer of Budapest 86 and some other videos.
See this comparison. Separated fields from a single frame. If this was a proper interlaced video, it would feature Freddie actually moving. Only thing that moves is the signal bar at the bottom and the frame position moves ever so slightly also probably due to VHS signal. Got to note though, that the film was edited and compiled on a tape, hence the texts in red swiping over the frame at the beginning of the video is proper interlaced material, the main feature however is not. So this wasn't good enough reason for me to make it 50 fps and enlarge the filesize uselessly. http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/188039
2. https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/d62c/9mgeql2x165vpal7g.jpg" border="0" alt="Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire" />
3. It has film aesthetics buried underneath the video tape treatment.
You guys should trust me on these things. I've dealt with and analysed tons of videos through the years.