Talk:Progressive scan

message: The twittering is annoying my eyes, and makes it very annoying to even read the first part of the article, since it will be on your screen unless you make the window smaller. It shouldn't be necessary for people to resize their window in order to pleasantly read the article. Can't we do something about it? Make a "hide image" button or similiar?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanze (talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the reason it was thumbnailed to begin with was because the "Seizure causing propensity of the image was 'disputed'" previously already.  Someone just reverted it to full size a couple days ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.37.72 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twittering image 

message: The current article (on 27OCT05) refers to a factor of 0.6 to determine the visual perception of vertical interlaced lines? Can anyone substantiate this? How precise is it?
Some thoughts : Why is it not a factor of 0.5? How much does line blooming interfere with this perception. Is it dependent on the brightness/contrast settings of a particular screen?
: This is called the "Kell factor".  I'd read before that it is .6 for interlaced displays and .9 for progressive.  However I did a google search to verify this, and found all sorts of conflicting info with no one description predominating.Algr 09:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kell factor" 

message: * "This rough animation compares progressive scan with interlace scan, also demonstrating the interline twitter effect associated with interlace. The interlaced images use half the bandwidth of the progressive ones. The left-center image precisely duplicates the pixels of the progressive one, but interlace causes details to twitter. Real interlaced video blurs such details to prevent twitter, but as seen on the right-center image, such softening (or anti-aliasing) comes at the cost of image clarity. A line doubler could not restore the previously interlaced image on the right to the full quality of the progressive image on the left. Note - Because the refresh rate has been greatly slowed down, and the resolution is much lower than that of typical 480-line interlaced video, the flicker in the simulated interlaced portions and also the visibility of the black lines in this image are exaggerated."
- Could someone rewrite this part ? The Anti-Aliasing part seems to generalize a problem with LCD/Plasma displays. I am not aware of SD CRTs with Anti-Aliasing. Also the "Note" seems a bit odd.
I feel that I am lacking the English skills to rewrite it myself. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His main point is that real footage is always intenionally softened a little to suppress interlace twitter.  So, twitter is not a big issue even though the images suggest it is.  The NOTE part is not quite right:  The author is refering to the artificially slowed framerate being a cause of exageration - but it is of a still image so interlace doesn't show up at all.  The first image could also be an interlaced one, there is no way to tell except by the comment saying "Progressive Scan".  His point about the blocky resolution is valid though. Evanh (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Aliasing 

message: does progressive scan works over SCART Euro connector?
: No. The bandwidth required would exceed of what the SCART cable is capable of transmitting. It's also not included in the SCART standard. Even if in theory it would be possible (and I think I read that somewhere), you would still need a device capable of outputting a progressive signal via SCART and a display capable of receiving a progressive signal via SCART. --- From my experience most DVD players just output a composite signal via SCART if 'Progressive Scan' is enabled. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only true for SD composite wiring of SCART.  There is also RGB wiring of SCART, it is equivalent to Component cabling in quality and capability.  So, SCART is in theory capable of higher screen modes than Standard Definition. Evanh (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCART ? 

message: From the article:
" HDTV standards such as 1080i (1920x1080, interlaced) in most cases deliver a quality equal to or slightly poorer than that of 720p (1280x720, progressive), despite containing far more lines of resolution."
I don't think that is an accurate statement.
My experience has been that if you put someone in front of two identical TVs showing the same thing but one in 720p and one in 1080i, people nearly always describe the 1080i picture as being the "sharper" one (the exceptions being if there are a very thin horizontal lines in the picture or a small object moving quickly (relative to the screen)).
: That are two entirely different things. 1080i has the higher resolution, 720p has the higher frame rate. It also depends a lot on what your are displaying on which display. I think an example might help: Take your old CRT VGA monitor and your HDTV CRT capable of 1080i. 240p vs 1080i - what's better ? That said, and considering that LCD/Plasma displays have to deinterlace all non-progressive signals, I would recommend to use 720p as 1080i might look not as good on such a display. - That's probably where the above statement in the article comes from. DCEvoCE (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are both the same framerate unless you are talking about pulldown encoded footage.  But then it's not real interlace any longer.   Uncompressed - interlaced is superior, period.  In compressed form though, that advantage is reduced.  As for deinterlacing, I think only LCD's have to deal with this, there is very good adaptive algorithms, they can both effectively motion blur and also show a still with progressive like detail, just like the analogue CRT's always have been able to.  I wouldn't be concerned about this. Evanh (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1080i equal or poorer quality than 720p? 

message: Is the article implying that HDTV in the US can't support progressive scan at all?  If so, this is in error. MSTCrow 10:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact the opposite is the case: LCD/Plasma don't support interlaced signals. They have to deinterlace it. And this has nothing to do with whatever region they're from. DCEvoCE (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive Scan NTSC 

message: I've split the article into sections dealing with progressive as image recording technique and as a display technique. Both have different advantages and issues, and this confusion is source of much debate and questions. I hope this clears things up. Ricnun 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections

message: I just don't think that this article really explains progressive scan. Examples and metaphors would be helpful. Also, a quick definition of its opposite (interlacing) might also be helpful.
-- trlkly 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my best to overhaul this article to provide a clear definition on progressive scan, and its applications at present.  RyokoYaksa 12:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could be made clearer 

message: Requires higher bandwidth transmission rates than interlaced video of the same display resolution. As such, progressive signals requires higher bandwidth mediums in order to work, such as component video, HDMI, and digital broadcasting.
This isn't always true, because progressive material usually uses lower frame rate. So in case of i60 vs p24 it can need even less bandwith than interlaced.
:This is not how it works in practice.  DVD movies are encoded in 24p, but you still can't get progressive output without the use of component video cables.  Console video games, for example, have varying framerates of 30 and 60 fps depending on the game.  With either framerate, component video cables are still required for progressive scan output.  The general lesson here is that the framerate of the material has almost no correlation to the bandwidth it uses when streamed to a display device. RyokoYaksa (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because analog cables always use 50 or 60Hz. But this is just for analog cables between DVD and TV, not digital broadcasting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -.-; The same concept applies to over-the-air TV broadcasts.  It is still a constant stream of data regardless of the framerate of the material.  EDTV is not broadcastable by analog television standards, but is broadcast digitally. RyokoYaksa (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be possible to broadcast 25fps progressive in analog and it would need exactly same bandwidth as usual PAL. Just because there is no standard for that doesn't mean it's not possible.--88.101.76.122 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 25p progressive is being broadcast for decades by using 2:2 pulldown. Yep, a TV has to be smart enough to detect that fields belong to the same progressive frame, this is what better TVs are able to do, just the same as 60i TVs are able to detect 2:3 pulldown and display full 1080p24 out of 1080i60 video stream when a movie is shown. Mikus (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe 2:3 pulldown converts from 24 to 30 Hz.  This suits the 60 Hz NTSC TV rather than the TV changing to 48 Hz to suit 24 Hz film.  Also, a display doesn't have to be smart to deal with this encoding.  If it's an analogue TV then it just displays the picture as interlaced due to the pulldown being encoded into the interlaced signal.  Though, scan converting displays, includes all digital displays, do have to be smart to deal with deinterlacing of true interlaced pictures. Evanh (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requires higher bandwidth? 

message: The seizure-causing propensity of this page is disputed... --Elindstr (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  seizures 

message: Sorry, but when the second paragraph starts with "This system...", which 'SYSTEM' is being referred to?  The article was just prior to that talking about the "interlaced" system at the end of the previous/first paragraph and yet the article itself is in fact about "Progressive Scan".  So is the author refering to the article's subject matter or what was just being written about with reference to "This" at the previous juncture?
Again, i apologise for sounding so darn pedantic, but i honestly do not know what to infer and am just trying to set up my Plasma TV with my new Blue Ray recorder.  Naturally i want to get the best bang for my buck.  So thanks most genuinely to any good soul who might be able to help out.
PS. Believe it or not, i used to be manager of a large TV/Video Store some years ago, but things have changed a lot in the time since i 'got out of the game' so to speak.  I am, therefore, not a complete novice, but this one i'd like to learn more about for future reference and just plain old knowledge for a deeper understanding to try and keep up to date.  I often find myself being asked by family and friends for my advice and would certainly hate to lead anyone astray with half baked understanding.
 
Thanks one and all, TTFN!
Outofthewoods (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is there is two separate definitions for Progressive and this is not made clear in the main article.  One definition of progressive is how an interlaced signal can be utilised as two halves of a single frame to make one still picture.  The other definition is the names of HDTV screen modes.  Evanh (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Although, as I've recently discovered, the HDTV names might only be that, just names.  The distinction between interlace and progressive for HDTV might still be framerate, not resolution.  Just as it was in PAL/NTSC days.  Interlaced being used for 50/60 Hz footage while progressive gets used for 25/30 Hz footage.  In which case the main article is pretty mindless.  Evanh (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Don't Understand Something. 

message: Sorry, but when the second paragraph starts with "This system...", which 'SYSTEM' is being referred to?  The article was just prior to that talking about the "interlaced" system and yet the article is about "Progressive Scan".  So is the author refering to the article or what was just being spoken about with reference to "This" at this juncture?
Again, i apologise for sounding to pedantic, but i honestly do not know what to infer and am just trying to set up my Plasma TV with my new Blue Ray recorder.  Naturally i want to get the best bang for my buck.  So thanks most genuinely to any good soul who might be able to help.
PS. Believe it or not, i used to be a TV/Video salesman, but things have changed a lot in the years since i 'got out of the game' so to speak. So I'm not a complete novice, but this one i'd like to learn more about for future reference and just plain old knowledge for a deeper understanding to try and keep up to date.
 
Thanks one and all,
Outofthewoods (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Don't Understand Something. 

message: ::: There is no standard resolution called "1440p".  We can assume they mean WQHD, but I don't think the this page should re-enforce the incorrect practice of adding "p" to the end of arbitrary horizontal pixel counts and calling them a resolution.  (This is in regards to the see also links at the bottom of the page). 69.245.62.159 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 1440p 

message: In section 1, 'Example of Interline Twitter', the term line doublers is used without further explanation or hyperlink. Could somebody please add an explanation of this term or a link ...
--86.159.93.132 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line Doublers ..? 

message: 'On the left there are two progressive scan images. In the middle there are two interlaced images and on the right there are two images with line doublers ... A line doubler shown in the bottom center picture cannot restore the previously interlaced image' 
I'm am extremely confused by this: if the 'line doubled' examples are just shown in the right hand column, the image at bottom-center cannot be line doubled ...?
@ 2A01:5EC0:7807:E1AC:1:0:A243:79B4 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Order?