Yes, I know the title overlay systems worked in blocks instead of pixels at that time. That is not my point. The point is that the output resolution of the image would still be 640x480, while the movie we have seen is 256x192, which means it has been downsampled resulting in anti-aliasing. The internal resolution of the title machine does not affect it - only the output resolution does. And that is still the same. Otherwise, the entire image would have been outputed in blocks, which did not happen.

You said downsampling a larger image into a smaller one would result in non-uniform smoothing, which can't be seen in the movie. Now, perhaps we're talking about different things here, but unless you have a *very* primitive filtering kernel, I don't see how anything except a uniform smoothing can happen. And that is what we se.

I have to trust you on the issue of hardware MPEG encoders not smoothing the image, as they usually aim for speed and not quality, and I've never worked with one so I don't have any references. But virtually all software encoders I've worked with do include a smoothing option to increase visual quality.

Actually, the title do appear in the P/B-frames as well as in the I-frames. The frames 0, 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108 are I-frames, yet the blocks containing the title change a significant more number of times than 7. Not that it's very important for this discussion. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I completely agree that the misalignment of the text is proof enough that the movie is a fake. I do still disagree with you, however, that anything relevant can be said of the aliasing state of the original source footage based on the clip we have seen.

However, I willingly admit that I might have misunderstood your argument, but from where I stand I do not completely see it holding together.

Anyway, I'll make a few experiments and see what I can find out. I might very well be wrong.