|
|
Posted by Joshua Zyber on 01/18/07 13:13
"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45af285e$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> You are quoting out of context. On a CRT display it provides a very
> obvious benefit even for interlaced source material. On a plasma
> display it also provides a very obvious benefit even for interlaced
> source material.
>
> However, on an LCD display, it makes no difference *for interlaced
> source material* (we were specifically discussing DVD at the time) -
> which is what I said.
Why would an LCD be any difference than a plasma or progressive-capable
CRT in this regard? Are you just pulling stuff out of your ass now or
what?
> There is no way that conversion to progressive can alter the fact that
> the odd lines occur in a time frame one fiftieth of a second earlier
> than the even lines.
Film-based content on DVD is stored in 720x480 frames with 2:3 reverse
field cadence headers that instruct the MPEG decoder how to interlace
them for output. The interlaced fields from each original frame do not
come from different moments in time. With proper 3:2 deinterlacing, the
original frames can be reconstructed in their original form.
This is of course different than how video-based content is stored on
DVD, but we weren't talking about that. You specifically referenced a
feature film's end credits.
> Of course for progressive source material then once again there is an
> obvious benefit - but we weren't discussing that context.
As a matter of fact, we were.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|