Am I on crack, or is INTERLACED better than PROGRESSIVE??? (1 Viewer)

[CraigK]

Ok, I am sure that this has been discussed before, but alas, I would like some feedback.

I have a JVC 16:9 I-Art HDTV that boosts that it can upconvert all signals. I have played DVD's with my Panasonic Prog. Scan player for awhile.

Now, I was testing to see what it looked like without progressive, and I swear my picture is just as good, if not slightly better.

Dag! Am I nuts, or does anyone else out there think the same??

 

[Martin_Dean]

I have a similar problem in that I can se NO difference whatsoever between progressive and interlaced on my Panasonic projection HDTV and Sony 5-disc DVD player. I would like someone to explain to me WHY?????????? Everyone I talk to says they see a big difference on their setups. And yes, I use component cables.

 

[CraigK]

Ditto here too. I use Component and I see no difference either!

WTF!?

 

[adamKI]

You've both discovered that the deinterlacer in your television is better than the one in your DVD player.

If you want to see what good progressive scan looks like, browse around some of the posts in the Audio/Video sources forum here and buy (if only just to return it later) one of the hihgly rated dvd players. People seem to like the Denon 2200 and 2900 - you'll find that most players costing less than $200 probably won't deinterlace better than your TV can (there are exceptions, of course).

Otherwise, if you're happy with the picture from your DVD player, don't worry about it.

 

[Martin_Dean]

Hmmm, I'll probably do that just to see if it is better. Damn, I have to come to these forums next time before I buy another home theatre.:b

EDIT: Christ that cheaper model 2200 still costs around $500, and I've never even heared about this brand. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

 

[Allan Jayne]

Since your TV (and practically all HDTV's) upconverts all incoming interlaced material to progressive, you are never seeing and therefore never able to actually compare interlaced versus progressive. All you are comparing is how well your DVD player de-interlaced (all DVD decoding is first as interlaced) compared with how well your TV de-interlaced the material.

If you were truly seeing interlaced, you would see a coarse scan line effect as you followed action up and down, more pronounced if you wear glasses. Go to a TV store and you can see both interlaced and progressive large screen TV's.

Video hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/viddoubl.htm

 

[Herschel]

I don't really understand how that could be. The DVD player knows which fields to show to give the progressive output because of the flags in the MPEG stream. The TV is just guessing.

It seems like there has to be something else going on here...

 

[adamKI]

 

[David Devaux]

Damn, I have to come to these forums next time before I buy another home theatre.

EDIT: Christ that cheaper model 2200 still costs around $500, and I've never even heared about this brand. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

--------------------------------------------------------

If you haven't heard of Denon, you really need to spend more time on these boards

I would suggest you cruise the boards all day while at work and then for a few hours when you are home as well. you will soon gain the knowledge needed to impress your friends with you ever building knowledge of all things electronic. Welcome to Geekdom, it is a great place to be

God I need a life!!!

 

[Kendall T]

Okay now I'm getting confused.
I don't have a progressive scan DVD player, but ever since I bought a Panasonic HDTV, I have been dwelling on the fact that I sould have bought a progressive scan. Are you guys saying that I probably wouldn't see a difference if I got a p.s. player? If so, I could put my mind at ease!

 

[Oachalon]

i have a rp82 panasonic dvd player. The one everyone raves about for having one of the best progressive scan pictures. I have to completely get up close and stare for a while to see the difference between the interlaced and the progressive scan on my sony hd tv.

 

[Ted Lee]

i just read in some mag something about this. i don't remember the technical details, but they said interlaced typically looks better because of something that happens in the way our eye/brain perceives it....or something like that.

isn't progressive generally considered better for fast-motion anyway?

 

[Neil Joseph]

On my screen (96"), interlaced images are sharper and progressive images are softer BUT, there are minor interlaced artifacts that I can see when I look close at the screen. For instance, I can see shimmer in the subtitles when I look close, jaggies are more prevalent in interlaced images as well and there is more interaction (moire) as well so I keep mine on progressive anyway.

JVC XVS-500 (dvd)

Sony 11HT (pj)

 

[Craig J. Koban]

I dunno anymore. I too have the Panasonic player that is supposed to do wonders hooked up to my 48" JVC HDTV. I will be damned if I can tell a difference. I do notice a bit more sharpness on interlaced though...the picture is softer form progressive.

 

[JohnnyG]

I've done plenty of testing with my Panasonic DVD-F85 and Toshiba 46H83 and It's pretty obvious that the picture is more detailed with the DVD playing in interlaced mode, so that's where I leave it. The Toshiba converts 480i to 1080i and gives you the option of 540p or 1080i with a 480p input. My only conclusion is that it 'handles' a 480i signal better than a 480p signal.

 

[Allan Jayne]

>>> Interlaced images are sharper and progressive images are softer ...

You may get better results with better cables. When the video is de-interlaced in the DVD player, it is more sensitive to inferior (lower bandwidth) cables. Video frequencies in 480p run twice those in 480i, about 13.5 MHz maximum for DVD 480p vs. 6.75 MHz maximum for DVD 480i.

 

[JohanD]

Where does an HTPC using HD15/DVI fit in at, in terms of de-interlacing quality? Something like DScaler? (www.dscaler.org)

 

[JohnnyG]

Well, you've got the right idea, but you're using the figure that determines horizontal resolution (luma bandwidth). In either case it is 6.75MHz. max. You get 80 pixels per 1Mhz, so 80x6.75=540 TV Lines - the limit of DVD.

The number you're looking for is 15.75khz. for 480i vs. 31.5kHz. for 480p.