>>4314105Thats true but thats not what I did for that video.
Like you said, I can do it that - do a direct video out from the camera to a capture card - which will give me a 29.97 fps 480i uncompressed file, which I then filter and deinterlace into 60fps progressive file (and then make mp4s or webms from it)
I can also the do the same thing BUT record to tape, and then feed a tape player video out to the capture card.. etc. Thats what's going on in that webm.
What you are seeing is a de-interlaced 60fps video, more closely to what "tape" video actually looked like. Tape CAN look good provided you have a decent quality tape/capture path. Throughout the 90s/00s however the only way to digitize tapes was to record them to DVDs at whatever shitty resolution the player gave you, locked in at 29fps interlaced footage.
