[opendtv] Re: Interlace Artifacts
- From: "Tom McMahon" <TLM@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:10:18 -0800
Stopping emission in interlace would be the superset. Telecine'd film is
collected in progressive but often emitted in interlace.
That's a bug.
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stephen W. Long
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:14 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Interlace Artifacts
There is a sub-plot here that is not being discussed. Why were/are people such
as myself and many others (Tom for instance) pushing
for an all progressive universe? Because we knew "way back when" that the
world would eventually move to native P scan devices
(such as we are seeing with LCD, DLP, Plasma) and the interlace artifacts would
never be properly corrected with affordable
conversion devices - it is cheaper and better to just fix the problem at the
beginning - stop collecting the images using interlace.
It is interesting to see the asymmetric relationship in P versus interlace
source origination. Any P source looks ok on an
interlace display device (my first HDTV set was native interlace, all I could
afford, so even I USE TO have a hated interlace CRT in
my home). Interlace on Interlace looks ok. Interlace on P display looks
terrible. Coupled with frame judder, some fast motion
imagery using interlacing scanning is just awful - have you ever seen a 1080i
basketball game over compressed in an ATSC channel -
its awful. Contrast that with a 720p60 football game on ABC (and now Fox).
On the same bandwidth channel, the pictures are STUNNING. When 720p60 is
displayed on a native 720p60 device (my home projector),
my mouth drops open every time I see the pictures in my own home.
It is amazing that the old guard still sings their tired old songs.
Interlace in NOT the future (it never was). P scan forever!
At 09:59 AM 1/10/2005 -0500, Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>At 12:16 AM -0800 1/10/05, Bill Hogan wrote:
>>When Tom McMahon says something you can believe he knows and can tell
>>the difference between artifacts from displays and the signals
>>feeding those displays. Yes, Tom's observations can be taken at face value.
>>
>>Regards, Bill Hogan
>
>I'll second that, and note that NONE of these display technologies have
>artifacts that can easily be confused with interlace artifacts.
>Contouring, the lack of detail in dark and bright regions, color
>fringing (single chip DLP) , and colorimetry issues as DISPLAY
>artifacts.
>
>The biggest problem continues to be that which Tom alluded to:
>
>It is very difficult to do a good job de-interlacing in the receiver as
>opposed to using a high(er) quality professional system prior to
>encoding for emission. It get's even harder if the receiver is forced
>to work with a noisy analog signal (aka cable) or a trashed MP@ML
>encoding that presents the de-interlace chip with excessive
>quantization noise (AKA DBS).
>
>Regards
>Craig
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
>
>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
