Quote Originally Posted by PAT.P
After reading this article makes me wonder why consumers are being the suckers in buying HDTV in the 1080i when a 480p is as better.
This "article" is about 9 or 10 years old, and NOWHERE does it say that 480p is better than 1080i, just that PROGRESSIVE is better than interlaced, something that has always
been common knowledge, but with digital tv interlace artifacts arent as bad as this article lets on,
Sure progressive is better, but 768 is way better than 480p
And heres one more thing, your precious dvds all have at most 300 lines of resolution, that was about all that the old ntsc system could muster in the real world, and they are ALL 480 INTERLACED, deinterlacing makes the picture look smoother, but you wont exceed the standards of the old ntsc system, and deinterlacing to 480p might just ADD
artifacts, especially if your player doesnt handle 3:2 pulldown very well (and the cheaper players, like the one you probably have usually dont)
A bad hdtv will show 800 lines of rez on a 1080interlaced pic(rez is different than scan lines) but this is more and more irrealvant as CRTS were the main interlaced sources, as progressive displays become more prominent this will become less and less important
Basically you have made the common mistake of confusing scan lines for resolution
and your thinking went downhill from there. progressive sets resolution is closer to their scan lines, but still not the same.
But the most important thing is that you cant make a silk purse outta a sows ear, and DVDS are NTSC, if the source is pristine you might get 420 lines of rez out of one.
But old broadcast nisc was never worth more than 380 lines, at best