Re: Why interlaced HDTV?

> In a discussion today with a colleague I argued that it was illogical to
> carry interlacing forward into the forthcoming HD standards. [snip]
> The people who design these standards aren't stupid, so obviously I'm
> missing something. Can anyone elucidate?
>
I think the main reason for interlace is that the higher number of lines
sounds better and will sell better, just as a 3GHz computer processor will
sell better than 2GHz, even if everything else about it is worse. The
"headline figure" of 1080 is what makes the difference, more than any real
advantage in the perceived quality of the picture over 720p. We might get
1080 progressive in the future, which would be the best of both worlds, but
once the technology is up to the task it will also be possible to do 2000
lines interlaced and so on, so I'm afraid we will be stuck with interlace
for a long time, just because it makes the numbers bigger.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why interlace?
    ... What is the reason for having interlaced camcorders *today* with virtually all end-user gear needing to convert it to progressive before displaying it? ... The reason why interlace is still necessary for 1080 HD broadcasts is the shear amount of bandwidth required to broadcast 1080p50 material. ... Clever deinterlacing schemes come close to producing a similar level of quality for a much lower bandwidth requirement. ...
    (rec.video.production)
  • Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
    ... >> The people who design these standards aren't stupid, ... > I think the main reason for interlace is that the higher number of lines ... and withoiut doubling the bandwidth requirement. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
Loading