AVS Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi guys, I know that maybe you got a nausea of reading or unswering posts like this, but I reallt do not understand why everybody is going progressive.

Is it really better than interlaced ?


I mean, if I am not wrong, I read few years back that iintelaced was better than progresive, because the motion is smoother in interlaced videos, where you have to de-interlace the video and make it progressive using editing softwares.

Is that true ?

I mean is that possible that everybody is pushing and asking progressive because they are lazy to edit/post process the videos or their pc are not so powerfull to post process avchd 60i ?


I mean, if this is the case (60i is better than 60p), the problem are the users that do not like 60i for different factors.


Can u pls give me some clue on this ?

Please do not become too much technical with your unswer.


Thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
If there was a worthwhile and true 60p out there then that would be something to look at but at present 60i will give the most fluid look. The reason for that is that 30p (for example) will give you only 30 frames per second. That's pretty much true for 60i as well... only 30 frames/sec. BUT... within each interlaced frame (60i) there 2 fields with each one representing a different moment in time. So 60i holds more info than 30p (or even 24p for that matter) for a more 'real' look while 24 and 30p give you that kind of 'SURreal' look.


Again... BUT.... because a frame (in 60i) contains 2 fields which alternate people complain that they can see flicker (I debate this.... the human eye is just not that fast... but that's another story). At any rate 60p in theory would hold the same info as 60i but would lack the alternating field issue for a pure, clean, no-flicker video.... provided of course you have the equipment strong enough to playback a full 60 frames a second... which is not easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
Interlaced effectively gives you twice the frame rate. Unfortunately it also gives you half the resolution. The inherent ugliness being those jaggies when panning left or right. It's not needed with todays tech. And it's quite undesirable in digital as a frame grab is either mid motion, or half resolution. Now you can digitally blur the jaggies to add motion blur to make motion look smoother(in video). But in HD on a decent display it just makes everything look out of focus IMO. Progressive eliminates a lot of the issues. Although introduces one of it's own, jumpy motion. But with 60p and probably 120p source footage someday, that's not really an issue, outside of most playback devices not currently supporting such abilities. I said playback, not display device.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
Today's TVs are all progressive scan. For a given frame rate, at best you can take an interlaced image and turn it into an approximation of what it should look like had it actually been shot and transferred all the way to your TV screen as progressive.


At the expense of sounding blunt, I would say that for any video (24 fps, 30 fps or 60 fps) there is no advantage to using interlaced over progressive. If you can't see the difference, don't go looking for it.


-Suntan
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top