Hm, I find your posts pretty confusing. Can't quite put my finger on what you actually want to say.
So do I get it right when I say, your points basically are:
- Framerate conversion does make footage look different (where I wouldn't disagree and never have, obviously it does...)
- This new look you like more (which is a matter of taste at the end of the day so where I'd just have another taste)
I (and I guess everyone else considering their wide user base) don't seem to think that using them creates jerky, bad video in their conversions as has been asserted by Solthair.
Even I've used that kind of software. I even deinterlaced my footage. Hell, I've even done Frameblending and Framerateconversion.
That doesn't change the fact, that deinterlacing basically erases 50% of my video information and the frameblending has reduced the quality of my images. YET, as stated above, there are reasons to do so.
Mine is, NightCast has to be ready for a blow up do film - so I have to have progressive footage in the end, which my camera doesn't shoot (well, it does, but the results are worse then with software deinterlacing). So I have a good reason to do that.
And the often reason for Framerateconversion is Video Slowmotion. You see, whenever you create slowmotion from video footage, your ONLY way to do it is by changing the framerate. While film can simply shoot fast and therefore actually shoot 150 frames a second, video can't. So to achieve that, you have to convert your framerate AND take a loss of quality for it. Many filmmakers are willing to do that, including myself.
There's reasons to do all that. I have some, you have some, as have probably many other of the wide user base you're talking about that supposedly disagrees with this Solthair guy.
Maybe they simply don't get it though, who knows.