Originally Posted by Dom2u
I understand it is a moot point if objects are stationary between frames but isn't the problem with interlaced content the fact that 1/2 of each frame never even gets captured?
And if you can point me to a good discussion on 720p versus 1080i CONTENT I would be obliged.
You really don't want to go there! You'd get a straighter answer if you asked for a good discussion on the Middle East!
It's not that half of the picture is never captured. The "missing" information is averaged into the lines above and below the scanned lined.
"CONTENT"? Real-life images are not sampled in any dimension, horizontal, vertical, or temporal.
Originally Posted by Joxer
With 720p its 60 full frames per second, so no such issues as with interlaced video and the higher frame rate is great for fast motion sports.
No, even 60 frames per second is too slow for sports. What's better, a blurry 1080x540 picture or a blurry 1280x720 picture. Doesn't make much difference. Progressive can match display panels better, but today's TVs are often 1920x1080. So the answer is -- 1080p/60!
Originally Posted by nm88
Exactly. Interlacing is simply a method of data compression that gives up some motion detail (which is noticed less by the viewer) to achieve greater static detail (which is noticed more by the viewer) using the same bandwidth.
Interlacing is just a method of data reduction, and an analog one at that! Progressive scanning requires twice the bandwith, which is why progressive images have less "spatial resolution." They end up being about equal, and 720p and 1080i are BOTH high definition, but picking one over the other is a sure way to start a fight.