|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 11th, 2006, 05:13 AM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London United Kingdom
Posts: 77
|
interlaced HD
is it just me or is it really retarded?
what is the point of interlacing for HD signals? i have always wondered this - i just don't understand it! why?? interlacing for HD seems like the most redundant, useless thing ever. who actually has an interlaced HD display? 50% of what i record with my HDV camera never gets seen. so why record it in the first place? if there is a reasonable justification for it i would so like to hear it. |
|
|
|
November 11th, 2006, 05:23 AM
|
#2 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,222
|
I have an interlaced HD display that does 1080i: my Sony WEGA 40" CRT , weighing in at 305 lbs. They don't make it anymore, but its color and blacks are glorious. When I bought it in 2003, there were lots of 1080i CRT displays from at least 28-36".
Interlaced displays are on the way out faster than anyone thought. For action, I don't think that I like 30p better than 60i. I would love 60p, though. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
