I guess Michael can clarify this best. But other explanations are welcome too.

Michael has mentioned in his DVD reviews, whether the mastering was done in “Film Mode” or in “Video Mode offering averaged frames”. Michael has explained it in the past that if the DVD is in Film Mode, the half frames can be weaved together to give progressive video, whereas if the DVD is from averaged frames, the half frames can’t be weaved together to give progressive output. Although real improvement of Progressive video can be seen on Progressive sets, but as we have seen in many comparisons, even on regular TVs (interlaced), DVDs mastered in Film mode give much sharper picture.

Now, MY QUESTION IS:
What is the difference in the DVD authoring/ making process?
Is it just incompetence, is it wrong settings on the equipment or is it that the proper equipment is not used or available?

Thanks.

Rana

Just to bring it back to the front page for the weekend.

Thanks.

Rana

I think it mainly lies in the sourced used. Most of the time original film is not used for the telecine process - so secondary interlaced sourced is used to make a digital version. Not quite sure of the exact details.

Ali



Edited By ali on Feb. 08 2002 at 23:55