Puzzling Interlaced vs. Progressive Discovery (1 Viewer)

[John Macri]

In sorting out my new 50H82, I discovered that non-anamorphic, 4:3 concert DVDs (video-based?)look much better with an interlaced signal from my Sony NC665P DVD player than a progressive one. When viewing in Theaterwide 1 "stretched" mode, the geometry and detail clarity is much improved.

Haven't tried a DVD 4:3 non-anamorphic DVD "film" yet...

Any theories on why this is the case?

 

[Sean M]

I don't know that the aspect ratio has anything to do with it. It's probably the fact that it's a video based source, rather than film. It means that the deinterlacer in your tv is better than the one in your DVD player for video based sources. Deinterlacing film is easy, especially in the digital domain as there is a complete progressive frame to reassemble. Video based material has no such point of reference, as the material is recorded into 60 fields from different points in time and requires more interpolation to turn into progressive frames. This is where deinterlacing engines like Faroudja's DCDi and Dscaler's Toms Mo Comp really shine. The second one is free btw, so long as you have a PC to run it on.

 

[Bernie Lomax]

I was just asking about this. My DVD is switchable, but my TV is not HDTV. Should I be using it as "interlace" as opposed to "progressive"?

 

[Sean M]

If your TV is not capable of displaying at least 480p, then your DVD player should be set to Interlace. This doesn't matter if you're not using the component out, or, on some players, the progressive component output jack on the DVD player. Composite and S-Video cannot carry a progressive signal so it will always be interlaced.