1080 interlaced vs non-interlaced

[lattybuck]

Ok, someone correct me if I am brain dead here. It won't be the first or the last time. I have a fair grasp of computer graphics standards which I use on CAD systems and modeling at work. This may not crossover clearly as I believe at present but here is the background and question that I have.
In the 80's we had a big showdown in the computer graphics industry over interlaced vs non-interlaced high resolution screens and hardware, namely the 1000+ meg resolutions. In the end it became clear that those of us utilizing higher resolutions made more effective use of time utilizing non-interlaced systems. When set up correctly it was and still is smoother and more accurate to work on for hours at a time. Less flicker due to environmental conditions and other variables as well. Interlaced is cheaper to produce so most people used it at first, but the workers on it all day could tell the difference with non-interlaced within a few hours. Eye strain etc were noticably less.
I think a current TV standard of sorts is 1080i for HDTV sets in general. I understand 1080 non-interlaced is coming out. Is the difference as noticable? And has anyone tried both at home to see about the old but fathfull interlacing eye strain issue that can happen over time?
I looked and couldn't see a thread on this specific subject. If I missed it please redirect me. Sorry to hassle you all if so.
Your help is appreciated.
Take care all

[Geoffcin]

Ok, someone correct me if I am brain dead here. It won't be the first or the last time. I have a fair grasp of computer graphics standards which I use on CAD systems and modeling at work. This may not crossover clearly as I believe at present but here is the background and question that I have.
In Take care all

In order of resolution there's available now; 1080i, 720p 480p, and 480i. The new Blueray DVD tech will support a higher rez signal, I think to 1080p, but I don't know how fast that tech will catch on. A comparision with the new high rez Audio formats shows a lot of indifference from the public toward these better formats.

[JeffKnob]

Ok, someone correct me if I am brain dead here. It won't be the first or the last time. I have a fair grasp of computer graphics standards which I use on CAD systems and modeling at work. This may not crossover clearly as I believe at present but here is the background and question that I have.
In the 80's we had a big showdown in the computer graphics industry over interlaced vs non-interlaced high resolution screens and hardware, namely the 1000+ meg resolutions. In the end it became clear that those of us utilizing higher resolutions made more effective use of time utilizing non-interlaced systems. When set up correctly it was and still is smoother and more accurate to work on for hours at a time. Less flicker due to environmental conditions and other variables as well. Interlaced is cheaper to produce so most people used it at first, but the workers on it all day could tell the difference with non-interlaced within a few hours. Eye strain etc were noticably less.
I think a current TV standard of sorts is 1080i for HDTV sets in general. I understand 1080 non-interlaced is coming out. Is the difference as noticable? And has anyone tried both at home to see about the old but fathfull interlacing eye strain issue that can happen over time?
I looked and couldn't see a thread on this specific subject. If I missed it please redirect me. Sorry to hassle you all if so.
Your help is appreciated.
Take care all
I imagine it would be the same sort of difference you would see between watching movie on DVD with progressive scan turned off versus it turned on. Progressive scan DVD players give a non-interlaced picture.

[Smokey]

The new Blueray DVD tech will support a higher rez signal, I think to 1080p, but I don't know how fast that tech will catch on.

1080P can be easily achieved with materials that have been shot on films where individual [full] frame can be had. All we need a up converter via HD Tuner or HD-DVD player that can [up convert] a 1080 interlaced signal into progressive format, and a TV that can display such a signal.

For video materials, it might little more complicated since the only way to achieve true 1080p (beside capable TV) is for [video] camera to shoot the scene in progressive mode.

[eisforelectronic]

1080i has become the format of choice for HD broadcast because the bandwidth requirements are quite a bit less than the next higher resolution 720p. Originally it was deceided that an Hd broadcast should if at all possible be progressively scanned. When 1080i was introduced, it was advertised as being nearly indistinguishable from 720p while taking up nearly a third less bandwidth. Each format had it's various supporters and it seems that ultimately cost won out. I see 1080p as being a home video alternative rather than for broadcast, at least for the next few years.