On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:53:45 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Interlacing is useless and meaningless for flat-panel displays. It was
> used in CRTs because of the low persistence of phosphors, and it always
> produced lower resolution and image quality than progressive scanning.
> It is not necessary for flat panels. It doesn't even have meaning for
> flat panels, since they don't scan to begin with.
Well...
No it wasn't.
The transmission rate is 25 frames per second, but people can see
flicker at repetition rates of less than 28 frames a second, so
interlacing was used to fool people that they were seeing 50 frames a
second.
The persistence of the phosphors was never an issue and long persistence
phosphors have been available for a very long time.
Computers have different problems but the major one with television was
always the bandwidth available for the transmission signal and not the
display medium.
--
William Black |