Kain Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Is the picture quality of a progressive signal really that much better than an interlaced one? ------------------ Coming soon... Home Theater: TV: Sony KV-ES38M91 (38" Direct View FD Triniton WEGA) A/V Receiver: Denon AVC-A11SR (European version of Denon AVR-4802) DVD Player: Denon DVD-3800 Center: Klipsch RC-7 Mains: Klipsch RF-7s Surrounds: Klipsch RS-7s Subwoofer: SVS CS-Ultra w/Samson S1000 amplifier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eq_shadimar Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 The simple answer is that with the proper equipment the progressive scan picture will look better than the interlaced picture. Here are some things to consider in this debate: 1) What are the native scan rates of your tv? Some tv's only have one others have multiple. Most of the time you want the input signal to match one of the tv's native scan rates. If the scan rates do not match then the tv will do some processing to make the signal match. Some tv's are very good at this conversion (sometimes referred to as line doubling) others suck. 2) In general the line doublers in DVD players are better than the line doublers in tv. The main reason for this is that in the DVD player all the processing is performed in the digital domain. If you are using the line doubler in a tv set the signal has gone through multiple D/A conversions before it is processed inside the tv. 3) There are exceptions to every rule. The Pioneer Elite series of RPTV's are known for having excellent internal doublers and a progressive scan signal will yield litle to no improvement over an interlaced one on these sets. What will a good combination yield over a bad one. Well you should notice less artifacts and jagged edges. The picture should be more "film like". Will you notice these improvements on a 27" tv? Probably not. On a 65" tv? Almost always. Laters, ------------------ ...wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world... My Home Theater Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted May 10, 2002 Author Share Posted May 10, 2002 Thanks for the info. But, what I really meant was progressive picture quality vs interlaced picture quality. How much of a difference is there? ------------------ Coming soon... Home Theater: TV: Sony KV-ES38M91 (38" Direct View FD Triniton WEGA) A/V Receiver: Denon AVC-A11SR (European version of Denon AVR-4802) DVD Player: Denon DVD-3800 Center: Klipsch RC-7 Mains: Klipsch RF-7s Surrounds: Klipsch RS-7s Subwoofer: SVS CS-Ultra w/Samson S1000 amplifier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 KAiN64, while I agree with eq_shadimar in principle perhaps I can give you a photographic analogy that may share some light on your question.In most cases, a professional photographer does not click the shudder until he has gotten the picture to "SNAP" into focus in his viewfinder. An amateur photographer is generally not so fussy and takes "snapshots" that may have not "snapped" into focus. Auto focus cameras help but they are NOT infallible. An interlaced image depends upon your eyes and mind to make the transition of one image from two rapidly sequenced "interlaced" images. So, how good the photo is depends upon your video AND your head equipment work together. In a progressive scan image you see one crisp image... an experience that is somewhat like the pro photographers viewfinder image "snapping" into sharp focus. Many times, on good HD monitors, the progressive scan effect may seem more of a subliminal improvement than an overt one on smaller screens... but my experience indicates that progressive scan creates less viewer fatigue along with the best possible picture... at least for the moment. Of course, this question means that you have arrived at the crossroads where to be "picky" requires deep pockets. -HornED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eq_shadimar Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 quote: Originally posted by KAiN64: Thanks for the info. But, what I really meant was progressive picture quality vs interlaced picture quality. How much of a difference is there? Yeah ok so maybe I was not so clear. How aobut putting it this way. Yes progressive scan is better than interlaced providing you have the equipment that can take advantage of it. Maybe this will help. Assume that your base system consists of a tv that does not accept a progressive signal and a plain ol interlaced DVD. You are happy with the picture but then you buy a tv with a progressive input. You are still using your older interlaced DVD player. Now your tv will try to upconvert the interlaced signal to a progressive one. The resulting picture quality will depend on the quality of the internal line doubler inside the tv. Because most of the doublers inside tv's are not so good you may not notice a picture improvment. Then you upgrade to a progressive scan DVD player. Now you should notice a difference. How much will depend on the quality and size of your tv. Here is another way to think about it. SACD and DVD-A are both better formats then music recorded using DTS or DD5.1 but in order to hear the difference you need the proper equipment (full range speakers, possibly bass management etc..) The difference that you are talking about is much the same. It is real and it does exsist but being able to notice the difference depends on your equipment. Laters, ------------------ ...wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world... My Home Theater Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Yes. On my SONY DVD player you have to set Progressive in the OSD menu, so i did that and liked the picture quality... then one day I was moving around stuff on the TV and saw the manual switch for three video settings, even though I had it connected for component and told the menu to do progressive, i still had the manual switch to be set as interlace. in the end i was thoroughly impressed with the advantage of progessive over interlace. ------------------ -justin SoundWise Support A technical help site created by me and my fellow Klipschers I am an amateur, if it is professional; ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5 Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avman Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 eq_shadimar is getting across the idea. depending on other equipment parameters the difference will vary. also consider what OTHER options will/may affect picture quality. i decided to do w/OUT ps, although my 36"hd tv will accept ps in and display as 480p, the tv upconverts 480i to 960i. if you look at 480p vs. 960i, you get the benefits of interlaced being better for motion vs. ps for still or data display, and double horizontal and vertical picture 'density' vs. just line doubling. any of the more advanced video members feel free to chime in here.i deal w/sony hd tvs and they upconvert to 960i, so some of my perspective is based on their theory of upconversion. avman. ------------------ 1-pair klf 30's c-7 center ksps-6 surrounds RSW-15 sony strda-777ES receiver upgraded to v.2.02 including virtual matrix 6.1 sony playstation 2 sony dvpnc 650-v 5-disc dvd/cd/SACD changer dishnetwork model 6000 HD sat rcvr w/digital off-air tuner sony kv36xbr450 high-definition 4:3 tv sharp xv-z1u lcd projector w/84" 4:3 sharp screen Bello'international Italian-made a/v furniture panamax max dbs+5 surge protector/power conditioner monster cable and nxg interconnects/12 gua.speaker wire Natuzzi red leather furniture set KLIPSCH-So Good It Hz! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael hurd Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 The televisions I have viewed in store have a much better picture with progressive scan than with interlaced, but that's only my opinion. Here's the scenario. With an interlaced output, one line of electrons on the screen gets info from the electron guns and the next one is blank. This repeats itself down the entire screen info, blank ( white ), info, ( blank , etc. etc. and the entire screen info changes 24 times per second. A conventional line doubler simply extrapolates or makes up the missing information lines in the screen based on the info from the line above and the line underneath. A true progressive scan will show all lines of information each time the screen is scanned. Whew ! hope I didn't blow that over your head. The difference in two similar line doublers is the speed that it processes the info and extrapolates the ( missing info ). Hope this helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 Having a Mitsubishi that can go up to 1080i (interlaced) allows me to feed it progressive signals as high as 540p. The true progressive version of an interlaced image has half the numerical value... but all of the image! My take is that progressive scan is better for text AND moving objects. A progressively scanned image is akin to a motion picture frame... showing one whole frame at a time. An interlaced picture at its highest resolution potential shows half-a-frame sliced into 540 strips alternated by with the second half-a-frame also sliced into 540 strips. The technique relies upon your persistence of vision as applied by your brain to complete the illusion that you have just seen one complete frame. Movies also "move" based on the persistence of vision concept. But the illusion of movement is enhanced by a sharp, clear image for what's NOT moving a slightly blurred image of what is moving. Look at a moving sequence in a video tape on a frame-by-frame basis and you will see what I mean. For example, when I took a photo of my front array, I stepped through the frames of Gladiator with a progressive scan DVD player... and stopped when I got to one that had the moving tiger as sharp as possible. Then took the photo as a still image on the screen. In interlaced image would have two parts stripped on the TV alternating between the two for a "still" image... which makes it less clear overall... not just on the parts that contribute to the illusion of a moving tiger against a still background. Less expensive "progressive scan" units tend to work like the less-than-ideal TV line doublers. Full-fledged progressive scan DVD players tend to cost nearly twice as much as the marginally progressive scan units. So, in short, your brain has less processing to do to turn the image into its still and moving parts when you have a progressive scanner... and the photo will be as sharp as your screen (monitor) will allow! -HornED ------------------ Photo update soon! -HornEd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.