No, it is the "field rate" to use the correct term. I abbreviated "fields per second" as "FPS" .
Originally Posted by Athiril
This concept of interlacing is one of the most misunderstood subjects among video/film technology, but it is very easy and simple once you get it.
It is easiest to say that video is shot at 59.94 or 50 frames per second, and forget the interlacing when talking about smoothness of the motion or frame rates.
Interlacing is a primitive "compression" scheme which compromises resolution or clarity, not frame rate. There are 50/60 individual frames shot every second, it is just that they are half of the full resolution but shot every other at a different "location" so that the resolution integrates to "full" resolution in our eyes. But, a new picture is taken 50/60 times per second and that is exactly why it looks so much smoother than 24 FPS material. We can also take any of these 50 or 60 video frames and look at it. It is a complete reproduction of any taken moment. It is just half of the resolution compared to what the moving image looks like.
Unfortunately, the terminology to call individual temporal samples as "fields" and two of them as a "frame" is so misleading that 99% of people who know a bit about interlacing do misunderstand the whole concept. There are technical reasons for the terminology but from the end-result point of view it is misleading.
In fact, as film material also gains more clarity and resolution when it runs because the grains at different locations integrate in our eyes, it is somewhat similar to "interlaced" video material. If the video material was like film strip, there would be 50 or 60 frames in a second.
Last edited by hrst; 04-15-2011 at 03:25 AM. Click to view previous post history.