[MPlayer-users] Re: Digital camcoder

[D Richard Felker III]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:13:08PM +0100, José FC wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> > José FC wrote:
> > > I hate interlacing, but I had never care about it when I was watching
> > > TV... until today. It's so baaad! I didn't notice it when I didn't know
> > > what to look, but now I can see a lot of jagged edges. And my TV is a
> > > new, good 29" flat Trinitron.
> >
> > 100/120Hz or 50/60Hz TV?
> >
> > The former have to double the framerate internally which does not work
> > very well because the Video is interlaced.
> >
> > Of course you can see the interlacing on a TV too, but it doesn't look
> > as bad on it as on a progressive display.
> 
> Usually I watch 50Hz PAL channels. But I don't care, interlacing is very hard 
> to notice unless I am very near the screen. If I watch it far enough I don't 
> see any jagging.
> 
> Also, I use my TV mostly to watch dvd's, and AFAIK PAL dvd's are not 
> interlaced. They look almost perfect (Matrix Reloaded DVD is so crisp and 
> sharp!!!)

It's not a matter of whether the content is interlaced (although that
contributes) but whether the refresh is interlaced. TV always has
interlaced refresh, no matter what you play on it.

With PAL movie DVDs, each frame is displayed for 2 fields, so you only
have interlacing artefacts for < 1/50 second every 2 refreshes rather
than every refresh.

With NTSC movie DVDs, frames are displayed alternately for 2 or 3
fields (telecine), so you have artefacts for < 1/60 second after 2
fields, then after 3, then again after 2, then again after 3, ...

I would suspect panning/motion looks more choppy on NTSC, but
interlacing artefacts (jagged look) are more visible on PAL. However
I've never seen a PAL tv so I'm just guessing.

Rich