On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 07:01:05AM +0000, Gerd Knorr wrote: > > Done intentionally to avoid interlace artefects. But, the problem is different target hardware. On a computer monitor, a progressive scan is (I think -- I'm not terribly interested in watching video on my computer) the right way to do it, but on a TV, isn't the ultimate proper way to output to emulate the way the signal is sent to a television over broadcast? If an interlaced broadcast signal (i.e. NTSC TV) was saved in an interlaced format (doesn't MPEG2 do this correctly?), preserving the fields, and then played back to to the TV interlaced (is there any video hardware out there that actually does this?), just like it was broadcasted (or if interlaced output is not available by the video hardware every scanline of each field is written to the adjacent missing scanline), taking care to preserve field dominance, would this not be best visual presentation for a TV? b. -- Brian J. Murrell
Attachment:
pgp4GbPhQRofC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
