![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The twittering is annoying my eyes, and makes it very annoying to even read the first part of the article, since it will be on your screen unless you make the window smaller. It shouldn't be necessary for people to resize their window in order to pleasantly read the article. Can't we do something about it? Make a "hide image" button or similiar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanze ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The current article (on 27OCT05) refers to a factor of 0.6 to determine the visual perception of vertical interlaced lines? Can anyone substantiate this? How precise is it? Some thoughts : Why is it not a factor of 0.5? How much does line blooming interfere with this perception. Is it dependent on the brightness/contrast settings of a particular screen?
- Could someone rewrite this part ? The Anti-Aliasing part seems to generalize a problem with LCD/Plasma displays. I am not aware of SD CRTs with Anti-Aliasing. Also the "Note" seems a bit odd.
I feel that I am lacking the English skills to rewrite it myself. DCEvoCE ( talk) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
does progressive scan works over SCART Euro connector?
From the article:
" HDTV standards such as 1080i (1920x1080, interlaced) in most cases deliver a quality equal to or slightly poorer than that of 720p (1280x720, progressive), despite containing far more lines of resolution."
I don't think that is an accurate statement.
My experience has been that if you put someone in front of two identical TVs showing the same thing but one in 720p and one in 1080i, people nearly always describe the 1080i picture as being the "sharper" one (the exceptions being if there are a very thin horizontal lines in the picture or a small object moving quickly (relative to the screen)).
Is the article implying that HDTV in the US can't support progressive scan at all? If so, this is in error. MSTCrow 10:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I've split the article into sections dealing with progressive as image recording technique and as a display technique. Both have different advantages and issues, and this confusion is source of much debate and questions. I hope this clears things up. Ricnun 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think that this article really explains progressive scan. Examples and metaphors would be helpful. Also, a quick definition of its opposite (interlacing) might also be helpful.
-- trlkly 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Requires higher bandwidth transmission rates than interlaced video of the same display resolution. As such, progressive signals requires higher bandwidth mediums in order to work, such as component video, HDMI, and digital broadcasting.
This isn't always true, because progressive material usually uses lower frame rate. So in case of i60 vs p24 it can need even less bandwith than interlaced.
I was under the impression that "Progressive Scan" as a name was introduced to label the encoding method done with films when converting them to video formats. Either that or it's just another marketroid term that gets fitted to whatever they want the current trend to be.
With the original non-interlaced video format there was a resolution of around 250 lines per frame. When interlacing was added the display doubled in resolution without reducing the framerate nor without needing any changes in the bandwidth while only the smallest of tweaking to the video electronics was needed. It was a cheap analogue compression technique.
Video framerates are at 50 or 60 hertz. All interlaced and non-interlaced video transmissions are at these framerates. Proper interlacing (Ie: Non-progressive) encodes both time and space in every field and can not be shown as a combined freeze frame.
Progressive scan performs a useful function when converting analogue film since it is only filmed at the pedestrian framerate of 24 hertz. There is the opportunity to fiddle the encoding of an interlaced display to give an improved freeze frame by treating the two fields of the interlaced display as a single frame at 25 or 30 hertz. This is simply done by encoding only spacial data in the second field, leaving out any time component since it didn't exist in the master film.
With digital compression, which replaces the reason for interlacing in the first place, and the new HDTV specs and displays to match, interlacing will never be used again. As such, progressive, which relies on the interlacing system, is also an out-of-date term relegated to history.
As a side note, I believe progressive may have also been used to refer to the equivalent behavior for loading large web-page images over slow links where the image is spatially transfered in an even manner. Resulting in low detail at first but the finished image is much higher detail.
Evanh ( talk) 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Applying the above to the example images at the top of the main article, all four examples can be from the same progressive scan source. The difference is the display itself:
- In the first picture the display has a higher bandwidth than the transmission and is configured for progressive scan decoding by assuming the second field is of the same time period as the first field.
- In the second picture the display is operating at the transmission rate and visually operates the same as the first picture when the source is progressively encoded. Although, the example is a still image so it looks the same even if the source was true interlaced.
- In the third picture the display is no different to the second. The difference is the source has been modified. Maybe a softening effect.
- In the fourth picture the display has higher bandwidth like the first but it's not configured for progressive scan decoding, and therefore is simply deinterlacing at full framerate by only working with a single field at a time. A relationship between the two fields can not be assumed with true interlacing.
Evanh ( talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To summarise: Progressive is explicitly not sequential. The existing definition is that of sequential scan and should have it's own page.
Evanh ( talk) 12:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Evanh, you haven't provided any evidence for your argument. You simply assert a certain meaning for "progressive" ("representing a sequential image as two interlaced fields") and then assume that your definition is correct for the rest of your post. Even the progressive segmented frame article uses phrases such as "PsF allows the progressive format to be maintained", implying that "progressive" == "sequential". – Smyth\ talk 11:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A disadvantage of 2:2 pulldown, compared to what?
Incidentally, if you agree that the word "progressive" does not usually now refer to 2:2 pulldown, then perhaps you should take this discussion to another page. – Smyth\ talk 12:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's start from the beginning.
Evan, you are saying that sending two movie half-frames as two video fields constitutes progressive signal. Not exactly. Devices chained between a TV station and TV set do not care what sort of signal do they transmit, well yes, it is 50/60Hz consisting of two fields, but what exactly these fields represent is beyond them. A display device like a TV set can be progressively scanned or interlaced. CRTs and ALiS panels are natively interlaced, LCD, plasma and projection displays are natively progressive. AFAIK, there is no extra information in the video stream, that tells to a display device, whether the transmitted video is supposed to be interlaced or progressive when interlaced transport is used, so the display device does its own analysis, this is why we have a new market for vendors like Faroudja or Silicon Optix or DVDO. If a display recognizes signal as progressive, it will display it at once as full frame, preserving resolution, if not, then it will treat it as interlaced. That is it.
On the other hand, there are ways to transmit truly progressive signal, one that does not have fields in it, for example 720p60. I don't know whether natively progressive transmission exist for standard def.
So what you call "progressive signal" should be called something like "video originated as progressive, transmitted using interlaced transport, preserving its progressive nature, and intended for recovery back to progressive by a receiver". But if the receiver fails to recognize what you call progressive as progressive, the whole scheming falls apart. This scheme is called PsF for high-def applications, Sony also calls it progressive scan when it means sending progressive via interlaced equipment. This sort of field "packaging" is also called 2:2 pulldown. It might had been called progressive before HDTV with its native progressive recording and transmission capabilities has appeared, but strictly speaking 2:2 pulldown is not equal to progressive scan. Mikus ( talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what progressive scan means in regards to the sticker you see on DVD Players. The DVD is scanning the audio/video data from a DVD and the outputing that to the Television. I don't see how all this talk about Broadcasting and DTV etc is even relevant when you are using a DVD Player with a TV. It has nothing to do with the broadcasting signals, does it? Also, an explanation from a consumers perspective would be nice also since it appears that the manufacturers are putting these stickers on the front of their units and on the boxes to make the DVD Players appear more feature packed and good value to the consumer. Is there any benefit to buying a DVD Player that has Progressive Scan over one that does not? What is the benefit? What does it do? What is the end benefit or detraction the user will experience? How do I follow this thread? -- Avrfan ( talk) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The seizure-causing propensity of this page is disputed... -- Elindstr ( talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That image should be behind a link with a warning. that could really take some people off guard who are sensitive to that. -- AnalogWeapon ( talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but when the second paragraph starts with "This system...", which 'SYSTEM' is being referred to? The article was just prior to that talking about the "interlaced" system at the end of the previous/first paragraph and yet the article itself is in fact about "Progressive Scan". So is the author refering to the article's subject matter or what was just being written about with reference to "This" at the previous juncture?
Again, i apologise for sounding so darn pedantic, but i honestly do not know what to infer and am just trying to set up my Plasma TV with my new Blue Ray recorder. Naturally i want to get the best bang for my buck. So thanks most genuinely to any good soul who might be able to help out.
PS. Believe it or not, i used to be manager of a large TV/Video Store some years ago, but things have changed a lot in the time since i 'got out of the game' so to speak. I am, therefore, not a complete novice, but this one i'd like to learn more about for future reference and just plain old knowledge for a deeper understanding to try and keep up to date. I often find myself being asked by family and friends for my advice and would certainly hate to lead anyone astray with half baked understanding.
Thanks one and all, TTFN!
Outofthewoods ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but when the second paragraph starts with "This system...", which 'SYSTEM' is being referred to? The article was just prior to that talking about the "interlaced" system and yet the article is about "Progressive Scan". So is the author refering to the article or what was just being spoken about with reference to "This" at this juncture?
Again, i apologise for sounding to pedantic, but i honestly do not know what to infer and am just trying to set up my Plasma TV with my new Blue Ray recorder. Naturally i want to get the best bang for my buck. So thanks most genuinely to any good soul who might be able to help.
PS. Believe it or not, i used to be a TV/Video salesman, but things have changed a lot in the years since i 'got out of the game' so to speak. So I'm not a complete novice, but this one i'd like to learn more about for future reference and just plain old knowledge for a deeper understanding to try and keep up to date.
Thanks one and all, Outofthewoods ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I see an odd statement in this article. In the benefits of progressive scan section it says, "Higher vertical resolution than interlaced video with the same frame rate." This is just flat out false. I have checked the older versions of this article and it has been a part of this article for a few years, but it has never been substantiated with a source. There is no vertical resolution increase, either real or perceived. I think it's time that this gross misunderstanding goes away.-- 68.32.17.238 ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In section 1, 'Example of Interline Twitter', the term line doublers is used without further explanation or hyperlink. Could somebody please add an explanation of this term or a link ... -- 86.159.93.132 ( talk) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
'On the left there are two progressive scan images. In the middle there are two interlaced images and on the right there are two images with line doublers ... A line doubler shown in the bottom center picture cannot restore the previously interlaced image'
I'm am extremely confused by this: if the 'line doubled' examples are just shown in the right hand column, the image at bottom-center cannot be line doubled ...?
@ 2A01:5EC0:7807:E1AC:1:0:A243:79B4 ( talk) 02:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The twittering is annoying my eyes, and makes it very annoying to even read the first part of the article, since it will be on your screen unless you make the window smaller. It shouldn't be necessary for people to resize their window in order to pleasantly read the article. Can't we do something about it? Make a "hide image" button or similiar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanze ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The current article (on 27OCT05) refers to a factor of 0.6 to determine the visual perception of vertical interlaced lines? Can anyone substantiate this? How precise is it? Some thoughts : Why is it not a factor of 0.5? How much does line blooming interfere with this perception. Is it dependent on the brightness/contrast settings of a particular screen?
- Could someone rewrite this part ? The Anti-Aliasing part seems to generalize a problem with LCD/Plasma displays. I am not aware of SD CRTs with Anti-Aliasing. Also the "Note" seems a bit odd.
I feel that I am lacking the English skills to rewrite it myself. DCEvoCE ( talk) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
does progressive scan works over SCART Euro connector?
From the article:
" HDTV standards such as 1080i (1920x1080, interlaced) in most cases deliver a quality equal to or slightly poorer than that of 720p (1280x720, progressive), despite containing far more lines of resolution."
I don't think that is an accurate statement.
My experience has been that if you put someone in front of two identical TVs showing the same thing but one in 720p and one in 1080i, people nearly always describe the 1080i picture as being the "sharper" one (the exceptions being if there are a very thin horizontal lines in the picture or a small object moving quickly (relative to the screen)).
Is the article implying that HDTV in the US can't support progressive scan at all? If so, this is in error. MSTCrow 10:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I've split the article into sections dealing with progressive as image recording technique and as a display technique. Both have different advantages and issues, and this confusion is source of much debate and questions. I hope this clears things up. Ricnun 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think that this article really explains progressive scan. Examples and metaphors would be helpful. Also, a quick definition of its opposite (interlacing) might also be helpful.
-- trlkly 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Requires higher bandwidth transmission rates than interlaced video of the same display resolution. As such, progressive signals requires higher bandwidth mediums in order to work, such as component video, HDMI, and digital broadcasting.
This isn't always true, because progressive material usually uses lower frame rate. So in case of i60 vs p24 it can need even less bandwith than interlaced.
I was under the impression that "Progressive Scan" as a name was introduced to label the encoding method done with films when converting them to video formats. Either that or it's just another marketroid term that gets fitted to whatever they want the current trend to be.
With the original non-interlaced video format there was a resolution of around 250 lines per frame. When interlacing was added the display doubled in resolution without reducing the framerate nor without needing any changes in the bandwidth while only the smallest of tweaking to the video electronics was needed. It was a cheap analogue compression technique.
Video framerates are at 50 or 60 hertz. All interlaced and non-interlaced video transmissions are at these framerates. Proper interlacing (Ie: Non-progressive) encodes both time and space in every field and can not be shown as a combined freeze frame.
Progressive scan performs a useful function when converting analogue film since it is only filmed at the pedestrian framerate of 24 hertz. There is the opportunity to fiddle the encoding of an interlaced display to give an improved freeze frame by treating the two fields of the interlaced display as a single frame at 25 or 30 hertz. This is simply done by encoding only spacial data in the second field, leaving out any time component since it didn't exist in the master film.
With digital compression, which replaces the reason for interlacing in the first place, and the new HDTV specs and displays to match, interlacing will never be used again. As such, progressive, which relies on the interlacing system, is also an out-of-date term relegated to history.
As a side note, I believe progressive may have also been used to refer to the equivalent behavior for loading large web-page images over slow links where the image is spatially transfered in an even manner. Resulting in low detail at first but the finished image is much higher detail.
Evanh ( talk) 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Applying the above to the example images at the top of the main article, all four examples can be from the same progressive scan source. The difference is the display itself:
- In the first picture the display has a higher bandwidth than the transmission and is configured for progressive scan decoding by assuming the second field is of the same time period as the first field.
- In the second picture the display is operating at the transmission rate and visually operates the same as the first picture when the source is progressively encoded. Although, the example is a still image so it looks the same even if the source was true interlaced.
- In the third picture the display is no different to the second. The difference is the source has been modified. Maybe a softening effect.
- In the fourth picture the display has higher bandwidth like the first but it's not configured for progressive scan decoding, and therefore is simply deinterlacing at full framerate by only working with a single field at a time. A relationship between the two fields can not be assumed with true interlacing.
Evanh ( talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To summarise: Progressive is explicitly not sequential. The existing definition is that of sequential scan and should have it's own page.
Evanh ( talk) 12:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Evanh, you haven't provided any evidence for your argument. You simply assert a certain meaning for "progressive" ("representing a sequential image as two interlaced fields") and then assume that your definition is correct for the rest of your post. Even the progressive segmented frame article uses phrases such as "PsF allows the progressive format to be maintained", implying that "progressive" == "sequential". – Smyth\ talk 11:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A disadvantage of 2:2 pulldown, compared to what?
Incidentally, if you agree that the word "progressive" does not usually now refer to 2:2 pulldown, then perhaps you should take this discussion to another page. – Smyth\ talk 12:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's start from the beginning.
Evan, you are saying that sending two movie half-frames as two video fields constitutes progressive signal. Not exactly. Devices chained between a TV station and TV set do not care what sort of signal do they transmit, well yes, it is 50/60Hz consisting of two fields, but what exactly these fields represent is beyond them. A display device like a TV set can be progressively scanned or interlaced. CRTs and ALiS panels are natively interlaced, LCD, plasma and projection displays are natively progressive. AFAIK, there is no extra information in the video stream, that tells to a display device, whether the transmitted video is supposed to be interlaced or progressive when interlaced transport is used, so the display device does its own analysis, this is why we have a new market for vendors like Faroudja or Silicon Optix or DVDO. If a display recognizes signal as progressive, it will display it at once as full frame, preserving resolution, if not, then it will treat it as interlaced. That is it.
On the other hand, there are ways to transmit truly progressive signal, one that does not have fields in it, for example 720p60. I don't know whether natively progressive transmission exist for standard def.
So what you call "progressive signal" should be called something like "video originated as progressive, transmitted using interlaced transport, preserving its progressive nature, and intended for recovery back to progressive by a receiver". But if the receiver fails to recognize what you call progressive as progressive, the whole scheming falls apart. This scheme is called PsF for high-def applications, Sony also calls it progressive scan when it means sending progressive via interlaced equipment. This sort of field "packaging" is also called 2:2 pulldown. It might had been called progressive before HDTV with its native progressive recording and transmission capabilities has appeared, but strictly speaking 2:2 pulldown is not equal to progressive scan. Mikus ( talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what progressive scan means in regards to the sticker you see on DVD Players. The DVD is scanning the audio/video data from a DVD and the outputing that to the Television. I don't see how all this talk about Broadcasting and DTV etc is even relevant when you are using a DVD Player with a TV. It has nothing to do with the broadcasting signals, does it? Also, an explanation from a consumers perspective would be nice also since it appears that the manufacturers are putting these stickers on the front of their units and on the boxes to make the DVD Players appear more feature packed and good value to the consumer. Is there any benefit to buying a DVD Player that has Progressive Scan over one that does not? What is the benefit? What does it do? What is the end benefit or detraction the user will experience? How do I follow this thread? -- Avrfan ( talk) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The seizure-causing propensity of this page is disputed... -- Elindstr ( talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That image should be behind a link with a warning. that could really take some people off guard who are sensitive to that. -- AnalogWeapon ( talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but when the second paragraph starts with "This system...", which 'SYSTEM' is being referred to? The article was just prior to that talking about the "interlaced" system at the end of the previous/first paragraph and yet the article itself is in fact about "Progressive Scan". So is the author refering to the article's subject matter or what was just being written about with reference to "This" at the previous juncture?
Again, i apologise for sounding so darn pedantic, but i honestly do not know what to infer and am just trying to set up my Plasma TV with my new Blue Ray recorder. Naturally i want to get the best bang for my buck. So thanks most genuinely to any good soul who might be able to help out.
PS. Believe it or not, i used to be manager of a large TV/Video Store some years ago, but things have changed a lot in the time since i 'got out of the game' so to speak. I am, therefore, not a complete novice, but this one i'd like to learn more about for future reference and just plain old knowledge for a deeper understanding to try and keep up to date. I often find myself being asked by family and friends for my advice and would certainly hate to lead anyone astray with half baked understanding.
Thanks one and all, TTFN!
Outofthewoods ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but when the second paragraph starts with "This system...", which 'SYSTEM' is being referred to? The article was just prior to that talking about the "interlaced" system and yet the article is about "Progressive Scan". So is the author refering to the article or what was just being spoken about with reference to "This" at this juncture?
Again, i apologise for sounding to pedantic, but i honestly do not know what to infer and am just trying to set up my Plasma TV with my new Blue Ray recorder. Naturally i want to get the best bang for my buck. So thanks most genuinely to any good soul who might be able to help.
PS. Believe it or not, i used to be a TV/Video salesman, but things have changed a lot in the years since i 'got out of the game' so to speak. So I'm not a complete novice, but this one i'd like to learn more about for future reference and just plain old knowledge for a deeper understanding to try and keep up to date.
Thanks one and all, Outofthewoods ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I see an odd statement in this article. In the benefits of progressive scan section it says, "Higher vertical resolution than interlaced video with the same frame rate." This is just flat out false. I have checked the older versions of this article and it has been a part of this article for a few years, but it has never been substantiated with a source. There is no vertical resolution increase, either real or perceived. I think it's time that this gross misunderstanding goes away.-- 68.32.17.238 ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In section 1, 'Example of Interline Twitter', the term line doublers is used without further explanation or hyperlink. Could somebody please add an explanation of this term or a link ... -- 86.159.93.132 ( talk) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
'On the left there are two progressive scan images. In the middle there are two interlaced images and on the right there are two images with line doublers ... A line doubler shown in the bottom center picture cannot restore the previously interlaced image'
I'm am extremely confused by this: if the 'line doubled' examples are just shown in the right hand column, the image at bottom-center cannot be line doubled ...?
@ 2A01:5EC0:7807:E1AC:1:0:A243:79B4 ( talk) 02:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)