Progressive tends to strobe more than interlaced. Interlaced shows more pictures in a second. It's actually not that much different from a movie projector. The shutter opens and closes twice on the same movie frame. So interlaced kinda replicates that but by showing the half the lines at a time within a frame. Now, one second consists of 25 (Pal) or 30 (NTSC) frames, (24 in cse of US film, 25 in case of European film) so your eye won't detect it so quickly. But progressive is sharper since it shows the whole picture, but unlike film projection or interlaced video you only get to see 25 (Pal) or 30(NTSC) frames. In film you get to see 48 frames (2x24) and in interlaced you get to see 50 (or 60) fields(=half a frame). So it's not that hard to conceive progressive is a bit more strobier than filmprojection or interlaced.
But let's face it, with 1080i you get over 500 lines per shot, already a lot more than DVD. Both'll look nice.
reveals half of the picture and then the other half that shows half a frame
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: The United American Empire
720. Because the P means Progressive. So with 1080i (interlaced) you get 540 lines at any given time. For 1080p you get 1080 lines becuase it is progressive.
There is no such thing as 720i. I would always go with Progressive if possible.
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: The United American Empire
Yeah, 1080p is theoretically better than 1080i becuase Progressive formats like 720p, and 1080p make the lines of resolution sequentially single pass or frame, which creates a smoother, "cleaner" image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content.
As opposed to tubes, microdisplays (DLP, LCoS, and LCD rear-projection) and other fixed-pixel TVs, including plasma and LCD flat-panel, are progressive in nature, so when the incoming source is interlaced, like 1080i is, they convert it to progressive scan for display.
Interesting. Sounds like a b!tch to work with but for a replacement of film, this is prolly the next stage. I doubt it's very much use for home use unless you insist on having an immense screen in your house and want to see it crisp sitting 2 metres away.
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: The United American Empire
Yeah, I can't see how it would be very useful in a home environment. It would take a serious computer, or physical media capacity and a sweet player to do this.
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: The United American Empire
The nice thing about CGI is it is scalable in some respects. The 3d models I work on are unless you use a texture based on an image rather than a material.
__________________
Last edited by sweersa on Oct 28th, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Oct 26th, 2008 06:11 PM
