Posted by wdoe999 on 11/15/06 01:28

Thanks. Yes, I had seen that article before and it does seem to make
the most sense. They are essentially confirming that progressive scan
is NOT better than interlaced per se, rather a progressive scan image
is better when the source is progressive scan (such as film).

What had me confused is that a good percentage of the information on
the web seems to be quite wrong (what else is new about the internet).
Most articles make crazy statements about interlaced images having
"half the resolution", or gaps between the lines in interlaced images
(as if progressive scan images have fatter lines or something).

It really shouldn't matter how the image is displayed (from top to
bottom, bottom to top, sideways, from the centre out) as long as the
source is scanned in the same manner.

Joshua Zyber wrote:
> <wdoe999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163130572.842519.199700@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm try to decipher why progressive scan video is considered better
> > then interlaced.
>
> Read this:
>
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html
>
> Everything you need to know about progressive scan.

[Back to original message]