Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: JC <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:38:11 +0100
On 17 Aug 2005 02:49:06 -0700, "davidrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<davidrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>FWIW 50Hz progressive content displayed on a CRT can flicker badly
>(depending on the phosphors) unless it's interlaced to 100Hz, and
>there's an argument for using more than 50fps anyway to reduce flicker
>on CRTs and motion blur on LCDs.
At launch in this country practically nobody will be using a HD CRT
set to view HD material and within a few years the CRT % numbers will
be even lower. We are moving to a world where all displays (LCD,
plasma etc) will be natively progressive and interlaced material will
have to be frame stored within the set. IMHO to spec an interlaced
system for HD which is then going to have to be de-interlaced using
the (variable quality) hardware of the TV is insane.
On flat progressive displays 720p looks the same if not better than
1080i and has the advantage of better rendering of movement.
1080p would of course be preferable to both....
Rgds
Jonatham
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Kennedy McEwen
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Roderick Stewart
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- References:
- Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Staiger
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Stephen
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: Roderick Stewart
- Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- From: davidrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Why interlaced HDTV?
- Prev by Date: Re: PVR Query
- Next by Date: Re: PVR Query
- Previous by thread: Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- Next by thread: Re: Why interlaced HDTV?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|