|
|
Posted by M.I.5 on 01/22/07 07:58
"Joshua Zyber" <joshzyber@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lZKdnWqL7Ib33S_YnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45af7be9$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Because of the relatively long time lag of the LCD elements. It makes no
>> perceptable visual diffeence if you write to the odd lines of the display
>> and then the even, or write to the whole display sequentially.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate the barest hint of understanding on a topic
> but pretend to speak authoritatively on it. And once again, you are way
> off base.
>
> All LCD displays are inherently progressive scan. There is no such thing
> as an LCD that can display interlaced fields. When you feed an interlaced
> signal into an LCD display, a deinterlacing chip inside the set will
> recombine the fields and display them as progressive frames. The lag time
> you speak of (which has been greatly reduced in recent years to the point
> where decent sets are barely a couple of milliseconds) is from one FRAME
> to the next, not one FIELD to the next. It is impossible for an LCD to
> display interlaced fields individually.
>
You are right that in all current production LCDs, the panel is driven
progressively. But it is quite possible to drive LCDs interlaced (and the
older little portable TVs were (like the 2-3 inch Casio jobs)). The upshot
for current LCDs is that it doesn't matter whether the driving video signal
is interlaced or progressive - it gets converted anyway (which was the
point).
I did intend 'Field' and not 'Frame'.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|