|
||||||||
Progressive scan |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Wales
Posts: 288
|
Progressive scan
From what I have read about Prog scan, the suitably equipped DVD player (such as Denon 2900) can extract and display a prog picture from any disc, assuming you have the suitable display medium such as plasma or LCD. This is not dependent on the disc in any way as I understand it, so where previously I bought R1 discs for their NTSC prog quality, I can now relax in the knowledge that any disc can be shown progressively.
Right? Well thats my first question at least. If this is indeed correct, than why are JVC launching a camcorder that can record images progessively, when any image it records, put onto DVD-R say, can be shown progessively by the above mentioned Denon? Is there any point to this feature, or have I got it all wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 550
|
Yes, progressive scan players can usually output a progressive signal regardless of the disc source. Although you need both prog-scan player and prog-scan TV (ie. the growing number of plasmas and LCDs), and a component connection, to take advantage. Some discs hold prog-scan video and some discs hold interlaced video, some discs mix and match between menus, extras and feature. Players have to be able to handle both, and output at least an interlaced signal.
In the NTSC world, all discs seem to be prog scan, but for PAL, only a handful of studios want to offer the best (fox, warner and dreamworks/universal have been doing PAL progressive discs for years and shaming other studios, leading to interesting situations such as the columbia superbit version of gladiator being interlaced when dreamworks went prog scan with their release!). Not sure why the difference - I've heard rumours that it's down to macrovision worries, which might explain why some players have to be hacked to enable PAL progressive. Or it could just be the old idea that being lazy and catering for 80% of your audience (interlaced CRT TV owners) is better than optimising a disc for the 100% with progressive OR interlaced displays. While turning prog-scan into interlaced, even if done by a cheapo DVD player, seems to have no adverse affect on picture quality, de-interlacing back to prog scan can be a bit tricky to perfect (some players even let you manually "tune" the de-interlacing with a selection of modes). Video encoding on DVD is a slightly complex thing... So yes, the dvd format allows for images to be stored as progressive video, and like 5.1 or anamorphic it's an enhancement which your player will scale down/ignore if your TV can't handle, but not all hardware manufacturers or movie studios want to offer it. Be thankful that some hardware is a bit future-proofed and not relying on a 50-year-old TV manufacturing hack (interlacing). |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
|
The point is that camcorders are normally interlaced.
They take two scans per frame (as standard tv is meant to work) this causes blurring / jagged edges with any movement when shown as single frame. (there are hardware methods of compensating for this) A progressive scan camera will only take one scan per frame and not suffer from such issues. [edit] mpeg can store films as frames or fields. frames are sent to a normal tv as fields as this is how tv signals work. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:38.

