Sunday, November 28, 2004
Member since:
December 2003
December 2003
mra,
I sort of answered this in the other thread, but I'll clarify here. It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the differences between "i" or (interlaced) and "P" or (Progressive). "Interlaced" is similar to standard tv, in that it only shows you every other scan line of the lines of resolution being displayed (or half of the frame) every 60th of a second. So technically you're not getting the whole picture at any time, your brain just tricks you into thinking it's seeing the whole image because the transition from odd scan lines to even scan lines happens so quickly. You also get a "flicker" effect as a result of this process, as you do with standard tv's. With progressive, every single scan line of resolution is shown every 60th of a second (or the whole frame). It looks much better than interlaced, and you don't get the "flicker" effect.
As for which format "looks better when converted from the other", I'm not sure what situation you'd be doing that in, and why. If you're talking about a dvd player that only outputs 420i to a progressive tv, that's an interesting question. Being that most HDTV's today offer 720P, 1080i, 420p, and 480i output, the tv usually changes automatically to synch with the source. Some do require a manual change, but it's still possible. However, most of the dvd players out there currently also offer both progressive and interlaced selection. On my sony player, it's a switch at the back of the dvd player, which when on "progressive" has a progressive indicator light on the face that lights up. I've never had a need to switch over to "interlaced", as it's a poorer picture. I'd try to stay away from using an interlaced signal to a progressive output, or vice versa. It may not even be possible.
- Josh
I sort of answered this in the other thread, but I'll clarify here. It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the differences between "i" or (interlaced) and "P" or (Progressive). "Interlaced" is similar to standard tv, in that it only shows you every other scan line of the lines of resolution being displayed (or half of the frame) every 60th of a second. So technically you're not getting the whole picture at any time, your brain just tricks you into thinking it's seeing the whole image because the transition from odd scan lines to even scan lines happens so quickly. You also get a "flicker" effect as a result of this process, as you do with standard tv's. With progressive, every single scan line of resolution is shown every 60th of a second (or the whole frame). It looks much better than interlaced, and you don't get the "flicker" effect.
As for which format "looks better when converted from the other", I'm not sure what situation you'd be doing that in, and why. If you're talking about a dvd player that only outputs 420i to a progressive tv, that's an interesting question. Being that most HDTV's today offer 720P, 1080i, 420p, and 480i output, the tv usually changes automatically to synch with the source. Some do require a manual change, but it's still possible. However, most of the dvd players out there currently also offer both progressive and interlaced selection. On my sony player, it's a switch at the back of the dvd player, which when on "progressive" has a progressive indicator light on the face that lights up. I've never had a need to switch over to "interlaced", as it's a poorer picture. I'd try to stay away from using an interlaced signal to a progressive output, or vice versa. It may not even be possible.
- Josh
