Restoring star wars

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

you get 1080 lines not 500

Originally posted by coolmovies
you get 1080 lines not 500

With interlaced you technically get 500+ lines at any give time. This saves on CPU usage or whatever TVs use.

Originally posted by queeq
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

That all makes sense. Thanks for the excelent explanation. Yeah, I would take 1080i over DVD (standard) any day.

But you would take 1080 progressive over interlaced right?

Well, with 1080i you do get 1080 lines per frame. But interlaced means the frame is divided in two separate fields of 540 each that follow each other.

And I don't know if there's a choice. about resolutions. In the end you get the set with the best picture. Resolution alone is not the only criterium.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, with 1080i you do get 1080 lines per frame. But interlaced means the frame is divided in two separate fields of 540 each that follow each other.

And I don't know if there's a choice. about resolutions. In the end you get the set with the best picture. Resolution alone is not the only criterium.

I understand the frames, but it seems atleast around here people look at 1080p as being superior. I see fewer newer 1080i sets and more 1080p.

so how many lines do i get from 720p tv?

Originally posted by coolmovies
so how many lines do i get from 720p tv?

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.

Originally posted by sweersa
I understand the frames, but it seems atleast around here people look at 1080p as being superior. I see fewer newer 1080i sets and more 1080p.

1080p is the best then.

Originally posted by queeq
1080p is the best then.

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.

1080p is best with an HDMI cable. Without it, it appears the same to the untrained eye...

The untrained eye cannot see the difference between VHS and Blu Ray... and since most tv viewers have untrained eyes... 😉

Originally posted by queeq
The untrained eye cannot see the difference between VHS and Blu Ray... and since most tv viewers have untrained eyes... 😉

lol Beta Max > all other formats!

I think you will like this Queeq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDV

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.

Originally posted by queeq
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.

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.

I think it would be more popular for the cinema.

Indeed. Large projection would benefit greatly from this technology, as well as integration with CGI.

Originally posted by queeq
Indeed. Large projection would benefit greatly from this technology, as well as integration with CGI.

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.

I didn't quite get that.