Since the first post, there appeared some new points to consider. So here they are, along with old ones:
- 30 fps video looks particularly bad.
- Deblink algorithm is not perfect (even if it's really good).
- People are totally okay with slight fps mismatch between emulator (and SD encodes) and monitor.
However:
- Deblink still tries to look closer console+TV
- 60 fps feature is not so common yet.
So here's a new question.
Should we do just full fps HD encodes, or deblinked full fps HD encodes? Here are the examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYWRpehyRqo against
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgejt9CGpDc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgY1_31eBAo against
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl5XYa-8LDM
Benefits from full fps+deblink:
- Looks more true to console+TV (even more so than SD encodes).
- Wider compatibility. Can be viewed by everyone incapable of using proper 60 fps youtube feature (looks deblinked when falling back to 30 fps too).
Benefits from full fps alone:
- Saves publishers encoding/uploading time.
- Doesn't have artifacts caused by wrong masking algorithm.
Note 1: I didn't test it all on Windows 7, maybe it'd work better there.
Note 2: Youtube does work for 59 fps too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywpeh-STXcY
Note 3: Not only games rely on alternate frame flickering, some systems use it to compensate for sprite limit, making all objects per scanline that overcome it blink every frame, and even "worse" - TASers abuse it too, some runs would look weird without accounting for alternate frame flickering. So my personal choice would be
"default to full fps+deblink unless you're sure it's not needed".